Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
TropicalSky
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 1:37 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 4:48 pm

Bridgestone developed tires for the B777LR/W rated to 235MPH
https://www.bridgestone.com/products/sp ... 20_01.html

jayunited 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?


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.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3698
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 5:10 pm

winginit wrote:
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.


You continue to lie about me and what I say. You know from my posts there was no "narrative" about JNB-JFK specifically. You know that what I contextually stated was that JNB-ATL likely would not/could not return in its current form. And thus far DL has proven me right. One option I said was possible under the previous language was JNB-JFK, and it was that that, one potential option. Apparently DL has chosen an different option (one that nobody specifically stated BTW). You were the one arguing without context otherwise that the pilot memo meant JNB-ATL would return in its current form. DL is throwing cold water on your belief. I'll let the facts peak for themselves on who can be trusted.

scbriml wrote:
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.


Basic economics doesn't change pre and post-Covid. The same route and network costs dynamics are in play. We can infer from the actions of DL (spending money on the 77L) that new A359s with a stop in CPT is not an optimal solution like the 77Ls were. That means the economics of the route cannot be assumed to be same as before, even with demand returning to previous levels. Obviously that throws the long-term viability of the route into some question. And it goes back to what I've said before. Either DL has long-term plans to reduce their amount of long-haul flying, and/or they plan to spend money on new airplanes to return to pre-Coronavirus levels, something they were not planning to do before as a replacement of current aircraft. If we assume DL knows what they are doing like is said on here over and over, we can expect more of the former. And there's nothing "wrong" with that plan.

DylanHarvey wrote:
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.


You just stated a timeline to resume service. The reports have specifically said there wasn't one given. So again, what would you think about one of the most profitable routes not having a timeline to return?

panamair wrote:
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.


1) If government restrictions were the actual sole holdup, that is a timeline that DL could have told its employees. They didn't do so.

2) Both winginit and TPG have reported that there is no timeline for the resumption of service to JNB. We know what's for sale later this summer will be changed and isn't reliable, and this is no exception.
 
Williamsb747
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 9:14 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 5:22 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
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?


The world is currently on lockdown. US borders are closed to foreign nationals, SA borders are closed to all meaning zero pax in or out. DL plans to return once the borders open (August on DL calendar subject to change), therefore it has a timeline to resume.
B747>A340>A350>B777>MD11>B767>B757>MD88/90>B787>A380>A330>A220>A320>B737.
CPT JNB
 
gloom
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 5:42 pm

Revelation wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
280T vs 275T doesn’t help JNB-ATL.

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.


That's only half truth.

280t version came with some significant improvements.
One is the weight (MTOW) increase, not significant here.
Two others are:
- new versions are slightly lighter, this will only slightly impact payload (I believe it's around few hundreds kgs)
- changed twist and PIP on Trents XWB, allowing for around 2% reduction in fuel burn. Since route is ULR, and fuel required is close to 100t, it gives some 2t reduction to 275t version.

All in all, those two elements give almost 3t payload advantage over 275t (at the same TOW).

Cheers,
Adam
 
A3501041
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:22 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 5:59 pm

Could Delta exchange their 77L for Latam current A350 fleet? I think it would be good for both airlines as this possible trade will streamline both fleets by eliminating a whole subfleet, as LA already operates 77W.
 
Dalmd88
Posts: 3132
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 6:02 pm

I think the plan was all along to dump the 777 and replace it with the 350. They just were not expecting to do it right now. It was going to happen once most of the 350 fleet was on property. That's why there was an investment in the new interiors. The 777 was going to keep going but likely not go through another heavy check cycle at Delta. I don't know where in the cycle the fleet sits currently.
 
winginit
Posts: 2849
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:23 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 6:06 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
winginit wrote:
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.


You continue to lie about me and what I say. You know from my posts there was no "narrative" about JNB-JFK specifically. You know that what I contextually stated was that JNB-ATL likely would not/could not return in its current form. And thus far DL has proven me right. One option I said was possible under the previous language was JNB-JFK, and it was that that, one potential option. Apparently DL has chosen an different option (one that nobody specifically stated BTW).


riiiiiight... but if we take a look at what you actually said tho...

MSPNWA wrote:
But I will be believing in real-world data about the A359 in relation to the challenges the JNB-ATL route offers and the unspecific language in an unreliable pilot memo before I state that JNB-ATL will return in the foreseeable future. And before you make the conclusion that the new bases mentioned must mean the SYD/JNB destinations will be flown out of those bases, remember what base the pilots for JFK-BOM came from.


looks like a JFK narrative to me!

MSPNWA wrote:
You were the one arguing without context otherwise that the pilot memo meant JNB-ATL would return in its current form. DL is throwing cold water on your belief. I'll let the facts peak for themselves on who can be trusted.


Merely said JNBATL service would return - CEO has confirmed. the end.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10120
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 6:23 pm

DCA350 wrote:
A Cape Town stop is smart imo.. American carriers do not like circular routes, but if executed right they can work. The A350 will be able to leave out full, and based on the early returns from United there is a market for CPT to the US.


That all the depends on where the U.S. market for JNB is located. If it is in ATL then flying back with a stop in CPT is no worse than a stop anywhere else. If it is somewhere else in the U.S., this return leg becomes a 2-stopper which is never good for yields.

Polot wrote:
DL still wants to offer ATL-JNB nonstop though as that is where the business traffic is. The leisure traffic to CPT will deal with a stop in JNB on the way to CPT.

Or fly United or any of the other 1-stop options available.

Bottom line is that this could work or in the end we could see the non-stop return with a payload penalty.
By the way, people keep saying JNB is hot and high. JNB is not hot after sunset. In the middle of the Summer you're looking at temps in the 50's and 60's at night and in the Winter it's in the 30's and 40's.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23962
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 6:58 pm

gloom wrote:
All in all, those two elements give almost 3t payload advantage over 275t (at the same TOW).

Yet DL is saying they won't do JNB-ATL direct with A359 according to this thread. Maybe that will change as they get more 280t models. Time will tell.
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
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 7:17 pm

Revelation wrote:
gloom wrote:
All in all, those two elements give almost 3t payload advantage over 275t (at the same TOW).

Yet DL is saying they won't do JNB-ATL direct with A359 according to this thread. Maybe that will change as they get more 280t models. Time will tell.

This shows that DL would like to sell the most seats carry as much cargo as they can without having to block anything in the event of a bad day. If anyone remembers the 77L stopped for a few more than a few times this winter, so its not immune. I challenge anyone to name a more challenging ULH route.....yes some routes are longer, but none with performance hinderances.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 7:28 pm

scbriml wrote:
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.



If we were to believe DL's figures is accurate for A359 range with full passenger + bag load, then the logical conclusion would be that DL will take a payload penalty (i.e. block seats) on all four routes mentioned.
 
majano
Posts: 272
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 8:25 pm

moyangmm wrote:
scbriml wrote:
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.



If we were to believe DL's figures is accurate for A359 range with full passenger + bag load, then the logical conclusion would be that DL will take a payload penalty (i.e. block seats) on all four routes mentioned.

You are free to believe whatever you wish, just don't expect everybody else to submit to your religion of obstinacy.
 
dcajet
Posts: 4654
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:31 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 8:28 pm

InnsbruckFlyer wrote:
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...


No traffic rights between JNB-CPT.

https://t.co/VkbyTgCMOI?amp=1
Keep calm and wash your hands.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 8:47 pm

majano wrote:
If we were to believe DL's figures is accurate for A359 range with full passenger + bag load, then the logical conclusion would be that DL will take a payload penalty (i.e. block seats) on all four routes mentioned.

You are free to believe whatever you wish, just don't expect everybody else to submit to your religion of obstinacy.[/quote]

The 6321 nmi figure was given by Delta. I don't think they have any reason to lie.
 
gloom
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 8:58 pm

moyangmm wrote:
The 6321 nmi figure was given by Delta. I don't think they have any reason to lie.


To believe one source and disregard so many more showing fuel flow, weights and all other details. One source, that is there for average passenger, not a statement showing conditions etc.

Well, how to state one that follows one inaccurate numbers disregarding so many other documents and proofs from real life... And not to be offensive.

How about: that was a bold statement.

Well, need to update kill file (if anyone still remembers what it was for).

Adam
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Moderator
Posts: 2339
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 9:14 pm

InnsbruckFlyer wrote:
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...


That wouldn’t be fifth freedom. Fifth freedom flights are international, and JNB-CPT is domestic.
I was raised by a cup of coffee.
 
777Mech
Posts: 926
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:54 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 9:28 pm

jayunited 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?


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.


Delta's LR tires are rated up to 235mph, and it still is the limiting factor for payload out of JNB.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 10:08 pm

gloom wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
The 6321 nmi figure was given by Delta. I don't think they have any reason to lie.


To believe one source and disregard so many more showing fuel flow, weights and all other details. One source, that is there for average passenger, not a statement showing conditions etc.

Well, how to state one that follows one inaccurate numbers disregarding so many other documents and proofs from real life... And not to be offensive.

How about: that was a bold statement.

Well, need to update kill file (if anyone still remembers what it was for).

Adam

We shouldn't be surprised anymore by these posts. I just laugh at them now. Obviously the A359 can do more than that by quite a ways, ATL-JNB isn't exactly short, blocked close to 16hrs.
 
flyinghippo
Posts: 768
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:48 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 10:12 pm

DL seeking approval for ATL-JNB-CPT-ATL

https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-air ... 5qHxkYAsE4
 
TropicalSky
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 1:37 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 10:21 pm

The ATL&JNB departures both moved up 2 hrs to allow for a 1hr delayed arrival back into ATL From CPT....should still catch plenty early departure banks

flyinghippo wrote:
DL seeking approval for ATL-JNB-CPT-ATL

https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-air ... 5qHxkYAsE4
 
User avatar
InnsbruckFlyer
Posts: 269
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:35 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 10:34 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
InnsbruckFlyer wrote:
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...


That wouldn’t be fifth freedom. Fifth freedom flights are international, and JNB-CPT is domestic.


Eighth freedom, my bad.
Last flown aircraft: 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 < B772 N794AN < A320 D-AIPS
 
seagulls2020
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu May 21, 2020 9:54 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 10:37 pm

777-200 still seems modern...
MInd you, we have seen Malaysia make this decision
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19044
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 11:22 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
We can infer from the actions of DL (spending money on the 77L) that new A359s with a stop in CPT is not an optimal solution like the 77Ls were.


We can infer from the actions of DL that the benefits of using A359s (even if the performance on one route is "sub optimal") outweigh the cost of retiring the entire 777 fleet even after spending $100 million on cabin refurbishment and taking a significant accounting charge.

The old plan was shredded. The old plan is dead, long live the new plan.

moyangmm wrote:
If we were to believe DL's figures is accurate for A359 range with full passenger + bag load, then the logical conclusion would be that DL will take a payload penalty (i.e. block seats) on all four routes mentioned.


It really doesn't matter what DL says on their public website about the ranges of aircraft in their fleet, the inescapable fact is they're replacing the 777 with the A359. DL appears to have decided that the significantly lower operating costs of an A359 fleet outweigh any possible payload penalty on those routes.
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.
 
NateGreat
Posts: 493
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:02 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 11:38 pm

So, I take it that in the future with the new A350 based, all Asia flying from ATL and LAX will use the A350, plus ATL-CPT/JNB and LAX-SYD? As for the AMS/CDG flying to/from ATL, it could be a mix of A350 and A330. Not sure about CDG and Asia from MSP, as MSP is/was not a 777 base. They could start bringing in the A330neos to other A330 bases outside of SEA.
 
FSDan
Posts: 3281
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 11:48 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
The larger and lighter aircraft is a negative?


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.


Larger is a negative if there's overcapacity in the market, for sure. If the market is underserved, larger is a positive. With very limited nonstop capacity between the U.S. and South Africa (possibly even more limited in the future, depending on what happens with SA), it's reasonable to think there could be enough lucrative traffic to fill the extra 18 seats without hurting the flight's average fare much, if at all.

The only real downside to adding the CPT stop is that some passengers will now have to fly JNB-CPT-ATL-XXX where they previously had just one stop in ATL. However, doing the JNB-CPT-ATL-XXX itinerary with same-plane service on JNB-CPT-ATL would likely still be competitive with itineraries that have to sidetrack through Europe, and themselves might still have a double connect.
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
dstblj52
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Fri May 22, 2020 12:08 am

FSDan wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
The larger and lighter aircraft is a negative?


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.


Larger is a negative if there's overcapacity in the market, for sure. If the market is underserved, larger is a positive. With very limited nonstop capacity between the U.S. and South Africa (possibly even more limited in the future, depending on what happens with SA), it's reasonable to think there could be enough lucrative traffic to fill the extra 18 seats without hurting the flight's average fare much, if at all.

The only real downside to adding the CPT stop is that some passengers will now have to fly JNB-CPT-ATL-XXX where they previously had just one stop in ATL. However, doing the JNB-CPT-ATL-XXX itinerary with same-plane service on JNB-CPT-ATL would likely still be competitive with itineraries that have to sidetrack through Europe, and themselves might still have a double connect.

If you don't have to get of the plane in CPT it much less of an inconvenience it still delays the flight and is sub-optimal but when compared to flying through Europe it's likely still going to beat them in terms of time
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 641
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Fri May 22, 2020 1:04 am

777Mech wrote:
jayunited 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?


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.


Delta's LR tires are rated up to 235mph, and it still is the limiting factor for payload out of JNB.


That’s a testament to the powerful (overly) GE90-115 engines. Typically, I would expect single-engine second-stage climb to limiting factor for hot and high applications.

It takes a lot of thrust to accelerate to such high speeds, even on a 15kft runway. Also a sign of plenty of thrust.

Beast or not, the 77L is done for Delta. Still impressive even though a more cost-efficient plane has some along.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 641
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Fri May 22, 2020 1:08 am

gloom wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
280T vs 275T doesn’t help JNB-ATL.

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.


That's only half truth.

280t version came with some significant improvements.
One is the weight (MTOW) increase, not significant here.
Two others are:
- new versions are slightly lighter, this will only slightly impact payload (I believe it's around few hundreds kgs)
- changed twist and PIP on Trents XWB, allowing for around 2% reduction in fuel burn. Since route is ULR, and fuel required is close to 100t, it gives some 2t reduction to 275t version.

All in all, those two elements give almost 3t payload advantage over 275t (at the same TOW).

Cheers,
Adam


Could you share a source? I’m not saying you’re wrong but 2% seems exceptionally high. I thought the incremental gains between the previous WV (that Delta first received) and the latest was much lower than that.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1277
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Fri May 22, 2020 3:32 am

scbriml wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:
We can infer from the actions of DL (spending money on the 77L) that new A359s with a stop in CPT is not an optimal solution like the 77Ls were.

We can infer from the actions of DL that the benefits of using A359s (even if the performance on one route is "sub optimal") outweigh the cost of retiring the entire 777 fleet even after spending $100 million on cabin refurbishment and taking a significant accounting charge.

The old plan was shredded. The old plan is dead, long live the new plan.

moyangmm wrote:
If we were to believe DL's figures is accurate for A359 range with full passenger + bag load, then the logical conclusion would be that DL will take a payload penalty (i.e. block seats) on all four routes mentioned.

It really doesn't matter what DL says on their public website about the ranges of aircraft in their fleet, the inescapable fact is they're replacing the 777 with the A359. DL appears to have decided that the significantly lower operating costs of an A359 fleet outweigh any possible payload penalty on those routes.

Our mindsets seem to be stuck in the pre Covid-19 rut! When DL resumes the ATL-JNB flights, they are probably anticipating a much reduced load. As such, trip costs will matter as the aircraft may only be carrying about 50-60% of its total capacity. The heavier 77L will pay a high penalty and DL has come to the conclusion that the A359 is the best solution for their operations.
 
gloom
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Fri May 22, 2020 4:50 am

moyangmm wrote:
The 6321 nmi figure was given by Delta. I don't think they have any reason to lie.


Actually I've had a look and it's almost exactly 5500nm.

Could it be range at MTOW?

But then, just to keep apples to apples, we need to say the truth.

787-9 range is barely 6000smi.
And 787-10 is at 4800smi.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? :)
Well...

Cheers,
Adam
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4259
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Fri May 22, 2020 4:51 am

seagulls2020 wrote:
777-200 still seems modern...
MInd you, we have seen Malaysia make this decision


Singapore Airlines, Japan Airlines and Air France have or are going to replace their 777-200ERs with A350-900s as well. The -200 has been a threatened type since the A350 entered service.
 
gloom
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Fri May 22, 2020 4:54 am

Okcflyer wrote:
Could you share a source? I’m not saying you’re wrong but 2% seems exceptionally high. I thought the incremental gains between the previous WV (that Delta first received) and the latest was much lower than that.


Yeah, always such statements should come with support.
1% gain on twist/winglet improvement:
https://leehamnews.com/2018/01/31/iberi ... -a350-900/
RR release on gain by XWB84EP and 1% gain:
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press ... tomer.aspx

All together it's a 2% gain.
Of course, the real number might be a bit ofgf one way or the other. That's approximately 2%.

Cheers,
Adam
Last edited by gloom on Fri May 22, 2020 4:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
Lootess
Posts: 378
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 6:15 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Fri May 22, 2020 4:57 am

People forget Glen and Ed got Delta turned around internationally in 2006, helping the company get out of Chapter 11 with explosive routes like ATL-DKR-JNB. In a sense that route was born a bit after SAA split from ATL and Delta's codeshare to joined Star Alliance.

I have to believe JFK-JNB had to been discussed because it's a real option on the A350, but going against SAA isn't a wise option when Delta already has monopoly power in ATL, the route printed money, why change the status quo when the market will be depressed for awhile. Signature route, and you can't cut your nose off to profitability.

In a sense Delta is fortunate enough to have made enough moves pre-pandemic to have enough A350s on property, along with LATAM's orders to navigate their way to retiring the 777 as quick as they can.

seagulls2020 wrote:
777-200 still seems modern...
MInd you, we have seen Malaysia make this decision


25 years isn't modern, A350 is modern.
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 1103
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Fri May 22, 2020 5:25 am

scbriml wrote:
We can infer from the actions of DL that the benefits of using A359s (even if the performance on one route is "sub optimal") outweigh the cost of retiring the entire 777 fleet even after spending $100 million on cabin refurbishment and taking a significant accounting charge.


Let’s say the 777L is the same as A350.

What saves the airline more cash - parking 18 Airbus wide bodies for 2 years or completely deleting the 777 fleet and getting rid of simulators, tools, unique parts, 2 lines of engines, etc a couple of years early?
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2614
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Fri May 22, 2020 5:59 am

moyangmm wrote:


If we were to believe DL's figures is accurate for A359 range with full passenger + bag load, then the logical conclusion would be that DL will take a payload penalty (i.e. block seats) on all four routes mentioned.[/quote]

Might I politely recommend that you refer back to the threads about DL flying SYD-LAX and the 787 vs A350 ranges? You were given incredibly detailed information, yet you continue to ignore the vast evidence that proves you wrong. A lot of time and effort could be saved by not repeating the same narrative. No, the A350 does not need to block seats on any of the four routes, with the exception of the Westbound JNB-ATL... but not CPT-ATL, and especially not for the 280T, but neither the 275T versions, and even DL's lower rated birds can make all but ATL-JNB-(CPT)-ATL. Please reread the below and save us some heartache.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopi ... 350+vs+787

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopi ... &t=1421021

This thread about this specific route might be helpful, though I see you're already there, I strongly suggest reading what people are saying to you instead of discounting them because they disagree with your narrative.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopi ... 1&start=50
 
Gemuser
Posts: 5079
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Fri May 22, 2020 6:01 am

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.

This is, AFAIK, a very USA centric thing. Most countries would allow something like this: aircraft arrives JNB, everybody gets off, JNB passengers go to Customs & immigration [C&I], CPT passengers go to the transit/departure level [security as well]. When the aircraft is ready to board all passenger go to aircraft. In CPT all passengers get off, CPT bound passengers go to C&I, ATL passengers go transit/departure area. When aircraft is ready all passengers go to aircraft.

This is the standard way transit passengers have been handled in the past. Of course there are always local variations between countries. [Australia even has a system where local passenger could be carried on such a flight, if the operating carried has traffic authority between the domestic ports, not likely to be the case here.]

Gemuser
 
jagraham
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Fri May 22, 2020 6:27 am

scbriml wrote:
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.


In some aspects yes. But in this case, DL management noted that the subfleets meant that up to 10 pilot moves - and the associated training - could happen when a pilot moved up to a 777. DL has wanted to reduce overall fleet and subfleet numbers to reduce pilot training expense. That one got accelerated with so many planes parked. Making the best of a bad situation I guess. Plus, higher weight A359s allows DL to carry decent (not 77L, no other pax airplane carries as much cargo as far as a 77L, but there is an expense associated with that) cargo loads. Adding CPT to JNB is telling. Nevertheless, despite all 777s just being upgraded to D1 at considerable expense (which means they were being kept on as of last Jan 1) and them seeming to be best suited for cargo heavy ULR routes, they are gone in less than a year.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Fri May 22, 2020 6:35 am

gloom wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
The 6321 nmi figure was given by Delta. I don't think they have any reason to lie.


Actually I've had a look and it's almost exactly 5500nm.

Could it be range at MTOW?

But then, just to keep apples to apples, we need to say the truth.

787-9 range is barely 6000smi.
And 787-10 is at 4800smi.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? :)
Well...

Cheers,
Adam


A359 ACP shows 1st knee - max structural payload range - at 5500 nm. But there are so many variants. Not just weight variants, but the new wing twist, new winglet, and XWB-EP engine. Airbus doesn't specify which variant is covered by the chart. So we are left to assume. A lot.
 
gloom
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Fri May 22, 2020 8:24 am

jagraham wrote:
A359 ACP shows 1st knee - max structural payload range - at 5500 nm. But there are so many variants. Not just weight variants, but the new wing twist, new winglet, and XWB-EP engine. Airbus doesn't specify which variant is covered by the chart. So we are left to assume. A lot.


Actually, current one shows knee at 5700nm, 5500nm was the figure when 275t was the one plotted. I believe DLs statement is also pre-280t, so that makes up a good reasoning (if any, since we all know it could be anything from longest DL flight served by A359, through max payload range, to anything else). Still, 5500nm for 275t bird at MZFW talks to me to make up number presented on DLs page.

Cheers,
Adam
 
Vicenza
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2020 3:21 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Fri May 22, 2020 9:39 am

ADent wrote:
scbriml wrote:
We can infer from the actions of DL that the benefits of using A359s (even if the performance on one route is "sub optimal") outweigh the cost of retiring the entire 777 fleet even after spending $100 million on cabin refurbishment and taking a significant accounting charge.


Let’s say the 777L is the same as A350.

What saves the airline more cash - parking 18 Airbus wide bodies for 2 years or completely deleting the 777 fleet and getting rid of simulators, tools, unique parts, 2 lines of engines, etc a couple of years early?


Firstly, they are both different aircraft, with slightly differing roles. But, that notwithstanding, it would appear that overall DL completely disagrees with you and, in this instance (or any for that matter) it is only DL's viewpoint/opinion which is important and is what counts. It looks to me that DL are correctly considering preserving cash, plus future earnings as a whole.
 
Superboi
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 11:16 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Fri May 22, 2020 10:09 am

Superboi wrote:
x1234 wrote:
DL has said the 772 fleet has the most payload and that’s important for cargo markets like JNB and SYD. Will the a350 have enough payload?



Maybe they will do Cape Town too.. :smile:



So I Guessed it right :smile:
 
flyinghippo
Posts: 768
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:48 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Fri May 22, 2020 12:51 pm

Gemuser wrote:
flyinghippo wrote:
grjplanes 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.

This is, AFAIK, a very USA centric thing. Most countries would allow something like this: aircraft arrives JNB, everybody gets off, JNB passengers go to Customs & immigration [C&I], CPT passengers go to the transit/departure level [security as well]. When the aircraft is ready to board all passenger go to aircraft. In CPT all passengers get off, CPT bound passengers go to C&I, ATL passengers go transit/departure area. When aircraft is ready all passengers go to aircraft.

This is the standard way transit passengers have been handled in the past. Of course there are always local variations between countries. [Australia even has a system where local passenger could be carried on such a flight, if the operating carried has traffic authority between the domestic ports, not likely to be the case here.]

Gemuser


Now that proposed schedule is released, with less than 2 hours stop at JNB, I think you're correct. The JNB stop makes going through immigration really tight.
 
Williamsb747
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 9:14 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Fri May 22, 2020 1:30 pm

flyinghippo wrote:
Gemuser wrote:
flyinghippo wrote:

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.

This is, AFAIK, a very USA centric thing. Most countries would allow something like this: aircraft arrives JNB, everybody gets off, JNB passengers go to Customs & immigration [C&I], CPT passengers go to the transit/departure level [security as well]. When the aircraft is ready to board all passenger go to aircraft. In CPT all passengers get off, CPT bound passengers go to C&I, ATL passengers go transit/departure area. When aircraft is ready all passengers go to aircraft.

This is the standard way transit passengers have been handled in the past. Of course there are always local variations between countries. [Australia even has a system where local passenger could be carried on such a flight, if the operating carried has traffic authority between the domestic ports, not likely to be the case here.]

Gemuser


Now that proposed schedule is released, with less than 2 hours stop at JNB, I think you're correct. The JNB stop makes going through immigration really tight.


Nope SA doesn't work that way..

Take SQs SIN-JNB-CPT-JNB-SIN for a better example... Pax that fly SIN-CPT-SIN stay on board in JNB while a cleaning crew make their way through the plane, then only do pax originating in JNB board the flight. No immigration, no customs, no transit area, no anything else..

DL would operate similarly, no Custom, immigration or anything unless it is your final destination.. PAX stay on board in JNB if flying ATL-CPT and pax stay on board in CPT if flying JNB-ATL.
Last edited by Williamsb747 on Fri May 22, 2020 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
B747>A340>A350>B777>MD11>B767>B757>MD88/90>B787>A380>A330>A220>A320>B737.
CPT JNB
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Fri May 22, 2020 1:30 pm

gloom wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
The 6321 nmi figure was given by Delta. I don't think they have any reason to lie.


Actually I've had a look and it's almost exactly 5500nm.

Could it be range at MTOW?

But then, just to keep apples to apples, we need to say the truth.

787-9 range is barely 6000smi.
And 787-10 is at 4800smi.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? :)
Well...

Cheers,
Adam

That would sound accurate for MZFW range. I’m assuming DL opted for the highest MZFW of 195.7t I think.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Fri May 22, 2020 4:50 pm

DylanHarvey wrote:
gloom wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
The 6321 nmi figure was given by Delta. I don't think they have any reason to lie.


Actually I've had a look and it's almost exactly 5500nm.

Could it be range at MTOW?

But then, just to keep apples to apples, we need to say the truth.

787-9 range is barely 6000smi.
And 787-10 is at 4800smi.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? :)
Well...

Cheers,
Adam

That would sound accurate for MZFW range. I’m assuming DL opted for the highest MZFW of 195.7t I think.


You think 7,275 miles is MZFW range of A350 (https://www.delta.com/us/en/aircraft/airbus/a350)? No it cannot be the case. 7275 miles equals to 6321 nautical miles, which is far from 5500 nmi showed in the ACAPS.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Fri May 22, 2020 5:23 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
moyangmm wrote:


If we were to believe DL's figures is accurate for A359 range with full passenger + bag load, then the logical conclusion would be that DL will take a payload penalty (i.e. block seats) on all four routes mentioned.


Might I politely recommend that you refer back to the threads about DL flying SYD-LAX and the 787 vs A350 ranges? You were given incredibly detailed information, yet you continue to ignore the vast evidence that proves you wrong. A lot of time and effort could be saved by not repeating the same narrative. No, the A350 does not need to block seats on any of the four routes, with the exception of the Westbound JNB-ATL... but not CPT-ATL, and especially not for the 280T, but neither the 275T versions, and even DL's lower rated birds can make all but ATL-JNB-(CPT)-ATL. Please reread the below and save us some heartache.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1406387&hilit=A350+vs+787

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1421021

This thread about this specific route might be helpful, though I see you're already there, I strongly suggest reading what people are saying to you instead of discounting them because they disagree with your narrative.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1446311&start=50[/quote]
You spoke facts. I love it
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Fri May 22, 2020 5:25 pm

moyangmm wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
gloom wrote:

Actually I've had a look and it's almost exactly 5500nm.

Could it be range at MTOW?

But then, just to keep apples to apples, we need to say the truth.

787-9 range is barely 6000smi.
And 787-10 is at 4800smi.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? :)
Well...

Cheers,
Adam

That would sound accurate for MZFW range. I’m assuming DL opted for the highest MZFW of 195.7t I think.


You think 7,275 miles is MZFW range of A350 (https://www.delta.com/us/en/aircraft/airbus/a350)? No it cannot be the case. 7275 miles equals to 6321 nautical miles, which is far from 5500 nmi showed in the ACAPS.

The guy mentioned statute miles. Either way can you explain how you think the A359 is somehow 3-4hours worse than ACAPS. I am guessing delta are listing the range as the longest flight. Because when it did ATL-ICN they had the range around 6900nm which is around the length of that flight. You have been proven wrong over and over about the A359 so I will pay no mind to you.
 
Gemuser
Posts: 5079
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Sat May 23, 2020 4:22 am

Williamsb747 wrote:
flyinghippo wrote:
Gemuser wrote:
This is, AFAIK, a very USA centric thing. Most countries would allow something like this: aircraft arrives JNB, everybody gets off, JNB passengers go to Customs & immigration [C&I], CPT passengers go to the transit/departure level [security as well]. When the aircraft is ready to board all passenger go to aircraft. In CPT all passengers get off, CPT bound passengers go to C&I, ATL passengers go transit/departure area. When aircraft is ready all passengers go to aircraft.

This is the standard way transit passengers have been handled in the past. Of course there are always local variations between countries. [Australia even has a system where local passenger could be carried on such a flight, if the operating carried has traffic authority between the domestic ports, not likely to be the case here.]

Gemuser


Now that proposed schedule is released, with less than 2 hours stop at JNB, I think you're correct. The JNB stop makes going through immigration really tight.


Nope SA doesn't work that way..

Take SQs SIN-JNB-CPT-JNB-SIN for a better example... Pax that fly SIN-CPT-SIN stay on board in JNB while a cleaning crew make their way through the plane, then only do pax originating in JNB board the flight. No immigration, no customs, no transit area, no anything else..

DL would operate similarly, no Custom, immigration or anything unless it is your final destination.. PAX stay on board in JNB if flying ATL-CPT and pax stay on board in CPT if flying JNB-ATL.

What you describe is almost exactly what I wrote EXCEPT the passengers stay on the plane! Does JNB not have a secure transit area? I also wrote "something like this" and "there are always local variations between countries".

Gemuser
 
flyinghippo
Posts: 768
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:48 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Sat May 23, 2020 5:07 am

Will DL disinfect their plane at JNB? If so, I doubt they will do it with passengers aboard.
 
Williamsb747
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 9:14 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Sat May 23, 2020 5:41 am

flyinghippo wrote:
Will DL disinfect their plane at JNB? If so, I doubt they will do it with passengers aboard.

SQ does disinfect the plane with passengers on board when flying SIN-JNB-CPT. With Covid19 this could change.
Last edited by Williamsb747 on Sat May 23, 2020 5:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
B747>A340>A350>B777>MD11>B767>B757>MD88/90>B787>A380>A330>A220>A320>B737.
CPT JNB

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