Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3413
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Sat May 23, 2020 8:59 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

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

It is odd indeed. However seeing as analysis of other airlines flights with the same aircraft type show that it falls inline with the airbus specs (as reliably as one would expect with airline to airline variation) to the same degree as the Boeing machines of late then I think it’s fair to say that the balance of probability is on the aircraft capabilities are inline with the airbus specs.

Lufthansa have the listed range as ~8100nm
what reason do they have to lie?

https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... 0-1000.pdf

You can see the payload range chart for the A350-900 on page 155 of the ACAP. I have provided the link so we can be sure you are able to read and understand prior to asking more questions.

The P/R chart demonstrates the performance of WV000 which has an MTOW of 268t or 7 tons lower than that of the DL aircraft.

The MZFW range of the WV000 from the chart is ~5800nm (the first kink from horizontal to first slope, often referred to as the first knee).

We can estimate the fuel burn of the A350 from various sources including actual in service data from SQ and it will not be too far away from 6.2t/hr.

So if DL have an aircraft configuration that has the ability to have 7t more fuel at takeoff with MZFW carriage. 7t at 6.2t/hr is 1.12hrs worth of fuel. The A350 has a cruise speed of M0.85 or ~488kts at cruise altitude.
1.12hrs of cruising at 488kts is 550nm. If we add this to the 5800nm from the WV000 Payload/Range chart as attached you will see a resultant calculated MZFW range for a275t variant of 6350nm (7307m). This is remarkably close to the DL figure and so could go a long way to describing the reasoning behind it.

Moyangmm, please feel free to critique the analysis work I have undertaken and point out errors I may have made, an open conversation will make both of us more respected in this regard.

It would make a very interesting topic to discuss any further evidence that you have outside of the one, apparently anomalous but highly explainable, piece of information and I would welcome your valued input.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Sat May 23, 2020 10:31 am

flipdewaf 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

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

It is odd indeed. However seeing as analysis of other airlines flights with the same aircraft type show that it falls inline with the airbus specs (as reliably as one would expect with airline to airline variation) to the same degree as the Boeing machines of late then I think it’s fair to say that the balance of probability is on the aircraft capabilities are inline with the airbus specs.

Lufthansa have the listed range as ~8100nm
what reason do they have to lie?

https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... 0-1000.pdf

You can see the payload range chart for the A350-900 on page 155 of the ACAP. I have provided the link so we can be sure you are able to read and understand prior to asking more questions.

The P/R chart demonstrates the performance of WV000 which has an MTOW of 268t or 7 tons lower than that of the DL aircraft.

The MZFW range of the WV000 from the chart is ~5800nm (the first kink from horizontal to first slope, often referred to as the first knee).

We can estimate the fuel burn of the A350 from various sources including actual in service data from SQ and it will not be too far away from 6.2t/hr.

So if DL have an aircraft configuration that has the ability to have 7t more fuel at takeoff with MZFW carriage. 7t at 6.2t/hr is 1.12hrs worth of fuel. The A350 has a cruise speed of M0.85 or ~488kts at cruise altitude.
1.12hrs of cruising at 488kts is 550nm. If we add this to the 5800nm from the WV000 Payload/Range chart as attached you will see a resultant calculated MZFW range for a275t variant of 6350nm (7307m). This is remarkably close to the DL figure and so could go a long way to describing the reasoning behind it.

Moyangmm, please feel free to critique the analysis work I have undertaken and point out errors I may have made, an open conversation will make both of us more respected in this regard.

It would make a very interesting topic to discuss any further evidence that you have outside of the one, apparently anomalous but highly explainable, piece of information and I would welcome your valued input.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And this should be the end of the range discussion. Love to see it Fred, always valuable input.
 
User avatar
MaxiAir
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Sat May 23, 2020 10:55 am

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.


Not aimed at you or your response in particular, as many answers hit in that direction.

I have a huge problem with the claims that the performance restrictions on the 77L (same applies to the 77W) are only down to the tyres.

These aircraft already have tyres certified for higher speeds than most other widebodies and still can't get fast enough to lift what they are supposed to.
Obviously more lift is required and that can not only be achieved by faster speeds but also larger wing areas. Given the already high speeds and the knowledge about many other, even larger aircraft lifting off with higher weights at slower speeds, its safe to assume this is more an aircraft wing design problem than a tyre problem.

Just compare wing surface areas of various widebodies and its obvious from what the 77L/77W suffer in hot and high situations.

The A350 will mature and over time with maybe a thrust bump will be able to easily perform JNB-ATL nonstop. Obviously it was not intended as an ULR frame in the first place.
Flown on - 306,313,318,319,320,321,332,333,343,345,346,359,35K,388, 712,733,734,735,736,73G,738,744,748,752,753,763,77E,77L,77W, 788, 789, M11, M1F, M88, CR7,CR9, E35,E45,E75,E90,E95, AR1,AR8, DHT,DH1,DH4, and some more ;)
 
airbazar
Posts: 10043
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Sat May 23, 2020 1:05 pm

DylanHarvey wrote:
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.....

Just about any longish route out of ADD? :) ET needs to make a refueling stop on the Westbound segment, on its routes to N.America for a reason. And there's also MEX-Asia.

dstblj52 wrote:
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

You're underestimating how long JNB/CPT-ATL really is. If your destination is not in the South/Southeast, the route via Europe will be about the same, and in some cases even shorter.

JNB-CPT-ATL-BOS = 8,573 nm
JNB-AMS-BOS = 7,856 nm

JNB-CPT-ATL-ORD = 8,277 nm
JNB-AMS-ORD = 8,432 nm

JNB-CPT-ATL-SEA = 9,647 nm
JNB-AMS-SEA = 9,098 nm

Only if your final destination is ATL or the South/Southeast is the ATL option shorter. If it's not, just the time it takes to clear CBP in ATL and then wait for your connecting flight, and then fly to your final destination will add quite an amount of travel time. And Europe is not even the only 1-stop option. Depending on your final destination you can fly JNB-JFK-XXX with SA/B6, and you can fly JNB-CPT-EWR with SA/UA.

So as I said in a previous post, DL must be counting on heavy local market in the South/Southeast, mainly Atlanta, Florida and Texas.

DylanHarvey wrote:
And this should be the end of the range discussion. Love to see it Fred, always valuable input.

Except this is not a range issue :)
 
PHLspecial
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Sat May 23, 2020 1:31 pm

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


I'm leaning towards those listed value from Delta is the longest range that is currently served in Delta's routes for that aircraft type.
Shoot might as well say the B78J has more range then the A359 if we are following Delta's values
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Sat May 23, 2020 1:47 pm

airbazar wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
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.....

Just about any longish route out of ADD? :) ET needs to make a refueling stop on the Westbound segment, on its routes to N.America for a reason. And there's also MEX-Asia.

dstblj52 wrote:
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

You're underestimating how long JNB/CPT-ATL really is. If your destination is not in the South/Southeast, the route via Europe will be about the same, and in some cases even shorter.

JNB-CPT-ATL-BOS = 8,573 nm
JNB-AMS-BOS = 7,856 nm

JNB-CPT-ATL-ORD = 8,277 nm
JNB-AMS-ORD = 8,432 nm

JNB-CPT-ATL-SEA = 9,647 nm
JNB-AMS-SEA = 9,098 nm

Only if your final destination is ATL or the South/Southeast is the ATL option shorter. If it's not, just the time it takes to clear CBP in ATL and then wait for your connecting flight, and then fly to your final destination will add quite an amount of travel time. And Europe is not even the only 1-stop option. Depending on your final destination you can fly JNB-JFK-XXX with SA/B6, and you can fly JNB-CPT-EWR with SA/UA.

So as I said in a previous post, DL must be counting on heavy local market in the South/Southeast, mainly Atlanta, Florida and Texas.

DylanHarvey wrote:
And this should be the end of the range discussion. Love to see it Fred, always valuable input.

Except this is not a range issue :)

Yes exactly :) Fred and Zeke helped all of us with that.
 
chrisXWB
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 4:27 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Sat May 23, 2020 4:36 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
So if DL have an aircraft configuration that has the ability to have 7t more fuel at takeoff with MZFW carriage. 7t at 6.2t/hr is 1.12hrs worth of fuel. The A350 has a cruise speed of M0.85 or ~488kts at cruise altitude.
1.12hrs of cruising at 488kts is 550nm. If we add this to the 5800nm from the WV000 Payload/Range chart as attached you will see a resultant calculated MZFW range for a275t variant of 6350nm (7307m). This is remarkably close to the DL figure and so could go a long way to describing the reasoning behind it.


Interesting. But it is odd that DL reports MZFW range only for A350 but not for their 777.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Sat May 23, 2020 4:51 pm

chrisXWB wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
So if DL have an aircraft configuration that has the ability to have 7t more fuel at takeoff with MZFW carriage. 7t at 6.2t/hr is 1.12hrs worth of fuel. The A350 has a cruise speed of M0.85 or ~488kts at cruise altitude.
1.12hrs of cruising at 488kts is 550nm. If we add this to the 5800nm from the WV000 Payload/Range chart as attached you will see a resultant calculated MZFW range for a275t variant of 6350nm (7307m). This is remarkably close to the DL figure and so could go a long way to describing the reasoning behind it.


Interesting. But it is odd that DL reports MZFW range only for A350 but not for their 777.

They reduced the range of everything because I remember the 77L was something like 10,300sm, and the 359 was around 6800nm. Which ironically was the length of Atlanta to Seoul which was the longest 359 flight they flew. And they also have the A332 listed as the same as the 359. So I can confirm it is MZFW range for the 359.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3413
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Sat May 23, 2020 5:21 pm

chrisXWB wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
So if DL have an aircraft configuration that has the ability to have 7t more fuel at takeoff with MZFW carriage. 7t at 6.2t/hr is 1.12hrs worth of fuel. The A350 has a cruise speed of M0.85 or ~488kts at cruise altitude.
1.12hrs of cruising at 488kts is 550nm. If we add this to the 5800nm from the WV000 Payload/Range chart as attached you will see a resultant calculated MZFW range for a275t variant of 6350nm (7307m). This is remarkably close to the DL figure and so could go a long way to describing the reasoning behind it.


Interesting. But it is odd that DL reports MZFW range only for A350 but not for their 777.

Yes ‘ChrisXWB' it is odd but clearly physics doesn’t change because it’s DL so an interesting one to understand why they would make such a choice. Dylan has a good theory regarding max route length. BTW, welcome to the forums, Maybe you could start a thread in tech ops to discuss further so you, me, moyangmm, USA77X and YoYo can discuss it one to one.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Sat May 23, 2020 7:27 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
chrisXWB wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
So if DL have an aircraft configuration that has the ability to have 7t more fuel at takeoff with MZFW carriage. 7t at 6.2t/hr is 1.12hrs worth of fuel. The A350 has a cruise speed of M0.85 or ~488kts at cruise altitude.
1.12hrs of cruising at 488kts is 550nm. If we add this to the 5800nm from the WV000 Payload/Range chart as attached you will see a resultant calculated MZFW range for a275t variant of 6350nm (7307m). This is remarkably close to the DL figure and so could go a long way to describing the reasoning behind it.


Interesting. But it is odd that DL reports MZFW range only for A350 but not for their 777.

Yes ‘ChrisXWB' it is odd but clearly physics doesn’t change because it’s DL so an interesting one to understand why they would make such a choice. Dylan has a good theory regarding max route length. BTW, welcome to the forums, Maybe you could start a thread in tech ops to discuss further so you, me, moyangmm, USA77X and YoYo can discuss it one to one.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I will be getting the popcorn and biscoff cookies for that discussion :) The ranges seem quite accurate actually, despite the MZFW showing for the 359 and not the ~8100nm, roughly 6100nm for the 242 Neo. Around 5500nm for the regular 333 at 230 or 233t seems accurate, the 242t is closer to or equal to the Neo I'd guess, the 6300nm for the 332 is right on for 230t I think. And DL 321's have no aux tanks, so that 2250nm seems right in the basic guise.
 
Dalmd88
Posts: 3072
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Sat May 23, 2020 8:14 pm

airbazar wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
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.....

Just about any longish route out of ADD? :) ET needs to make a refueling stop on the Westbound segment, on its routes to N.America for a reason. And there's also MEX-Asia.

dstblj52 wrote:
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

You're underestimating how long JNB/CPT-ATL really is. If your destination is not in the South/Southeast, the route via Europe will be about the same, and in some cases even shorter.

JNB-CPT-ATL-BOS = 8,573 nm
JNB-AMS-BOS = 7,856 nm

JNB-CPT-ATL-ORD = 8,277 nm
JNB-AMS-ORD = 8,432 nm

JNB-CPT-ATL-SEA = 9,647 nm
JNB-AMS-SEA = 9,098 nm

Only if your final destination is ATL or the South/Southeast is the ATL option shorter. If it's not, just the time it takes to clear CBP in ATL and then wait for your connecting flight, and then fly to your final destination will add quite an amount of travel time. And Europe is not even the only 1-stop option. Depending on your final destination you can fly JNB-JFK-XXX with SA/B6, and you can fly JNB-CPT-EWR with SA/UA.

So as I said in a previous post, DL must be counting on heavy local market in the South/Southeast, mainly Atlanta, Florida and Texas.

DylanHarvey wrote:
And this should be the end of the range discussion. Love to see it Fred, always valuable input.

Except this is not a range issue :)

One issue with the it's shorter to fly through Europe. It may be shorter, but what about the connecting times? The connection at AMS is going to be a plane change and likely an airline change. I would think the through plane service at CPT to be quicker than the connection at AMS.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10043
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Sat May 23, 2020 10:19 pm

Dalmd88 wrote:
One issue with the it's shorter to fly through Europe. It may be shorter, but what about the connecting times? The connection at AMS is going to be a plane change and likely an airline change. I would think the through plane service at CPT to be quicker than the connection at AMS.

The connection in ATL is also a plane change and you have to clear immigration, collect your bags, and re-check them. Something you don't need to do in AMS.
My point is, something like JNB-AMS-BOS is not only a shorter route but it's also only 1 stop vs. JNB-CPT-ATL-BOS. In other words, the route via Europe can be deceivingly shorter.
Heck, even something like JNB-DXB-SEA is only 250nm longer than JNB-CPT-ATL-SEA. That SA->ATL leg is a monster.
 
dstblj52
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Sun May 24, 2020 2:22 am

airbazar wrote:
Dalmd88 wrote:
One issue with the it's shorter to fly through Europe. It may be shorter, but what about the connecting times? The connection at AMS is going to be a plane change and likely an airline change. I would think the through plane service at CPT to be quicker than the connection at AMS.

The connection in ATL is also a plane change and you have to clear immigration, collect your bags, and re-check them. Something you don't need to do in AMS.
My point is, something like JNB-AMS-BOS is not only a shorter route but it's also only 1 stop vs. JNB-CPT-ATL-BOS. In other words, the route via Europe can be deceivingly shorter.
Heck, even something like JNB-DXB-SEA is only 250nm longer than JNB-CPT-ATL-SEA. That SA->ATL leg is a monster.

I would argue that the CPT stop is going to be less of a hassle than a connection and for most of those markets likely going through Amsterdam was a viable choice before when it, and you're underestimating the hassle factor for most people of dealing with immigration twice. Plus with a large connecting hub like Atlanta if you live in a city without a nonstop to Europe you're likely to find a better connection through Atlanta.
 
United1
Posts: 4072
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Sun May 24, 2020 2:29 am

dstblj52 wrote:
airbazar wrote:
Dalmd88 wrote:
One issue with the it's shorter to fly through Europe. It may be shorter, but what about the connecting times? The connection at AMS is going to be a plane change and likely an airline change. I would think the through plane service at CPT to be quicker than the connection at AMS.

The connection in ATL is also a plane change and you have to clear immigration, collect your bags, and re-check them. Something you don't need to do in AMS.
My point is, something like JNB-AMS-BOS is not only a shorter route but it's also only 1 stop vs. JNB-CPT-ATL-BOS. In other words, the route via Europe can be deceivingly shorter.
Heck, even something like JNB-DXB-SEA is only 250nm longer than JNB-CPT-ATL-SEA. That SA->ATL leg is a monster.

I would argue that the CPT stop is going to be less of a hassle than a connection and for most of those markets likely going through Amsterdam was a viable choice before when it, and you're underestimating the hassle factor for most people of dealing with immigration twice. Plus with a large connecting hub like Atlanta if you live in a city without a nonstop to Europe you're likely to find a better connection through Atlanta.


Not following why you would need to deal with immigration twice. You don’t need to clear immigration in AMS...you never leave the transit area.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
dstblj52
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Sun May 24, 2020 2:34 am

United1 wrote:
dstblj52 wrote:
airbazar wrote:
The connection in ATL is also a plane change and you have to clear immigration, collect your bags, and re-check them. Something you don't need to do in AMS.
My point is, something like JNB-AMS-BOS is not only a shorter route but it's also only 1 stop vs. JNB-CPT-ATL-BOS. In other words, the route via Europe can be deceivingly shorter.
Heck, even something like JNB-DXB-SEA is only 250nm longer than JNB-CPT-ATL-SEA. That SA->ATL leg is a monster.

I would argue that the CPT stop is going to be less of a hassle than a connection and for most of those markets likely going through Amsterdam was a viable choice before when it, and you're underestimating the hassle factor for most people of dealing with immigration twice. Plus with a large connecting hub like Atlanta if you live in a city without a nonstop to Europe you're likely to find a better connection through Atlanta.


Not following why you would need to deal with immigration twice. You don’t need to clear immigration in AMS...you never leave the transit area.

Sorry the first source I looked up to check that made it sound like you had to clear, checked again and it was just me repeating bad info
 
md11sdf
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:11 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Sun May 24, 2020 3:25 am

HOW can these airlines be so short sighted? This global emergency WILL eventually end and travel/tourism WILL resume around the world. Just be patient for crying out loud!!
LOUISVILLE KENTUCKY: Where your camera looks just like a stinger missile to the Airport Police!!
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18746
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Sun May 24, 2020 7:38 am

md11sdf wrote:
HOW can these airlines be so short sighted? This global emergency WILL eventually end and travel/tourism WILL resume around the world. Just be patient for crying out loud!!


Just be patient? :o

Just be patient while bleeding tens of millions every single day. Just be patient while paying thousands of employees to basically do nothing. Just be patient while your company goes bankrupt.

Doing nothing would be short-sighted.
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.
 
Dalmd88
Posts: 3072
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Sun May 24, 2020 2:30 pm

scbriml wrote:
md11sdf wrote:
HOW can these airlines be so short sighted? This global emergency WILL eventually end and travel/tourism WILL resume around the world. Just be patient for crying out loud!!


Just be patient? :o

Just be patient while bleeding tens of millions every single day. Just be patient while paying thousands of employees to basically do nothing. Just be patient while your company goes bankrupt.

Doing nothing would be short-sighted.

True, doing nothing would be very short sighted. Retiring the 777 sounds like a crazy idea to so many. Like I've said before. It was going to happen anyways. With the influx of A350s it was just a matter of having enough to cover all the 777 flying. With international way down for the next 1 to 3 years the A350 fleet along with the other widebodies will be able to cover the 777 work. This just moved the retirement up.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2094
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Mon May 25, 2020 2:08 am

All this debate on the A350 vs. the 777 and it doesn’t seem anyone is considering a couple of things here:

1. The relationship with Virgin Australia gives them codeshare access to Australia.
2. JNB demand has no doubt imploded and will be that way for a while. They can rely on Air France and KLM.
3. 777-8X will fill the 777 void when they can afford them. It’s the perfect plane for what DL wants to do.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Mon May 25, 2020 2:27 am

DL717 wrote:
All this debate on the A350 vs. the 777 and it doesn’t seem anyone is considering a couple of things here:

1. The relationship with Virgin Australia gives them codeshare access to Australia.
2. JNB demand has no doubt imploded and will be that way for a while. They can rely on Air France and KLM.
3. 777-8X will fill the 777 void when they can afford them. It’s the perfect plane for what DL wants to do.

One yes. But VA are in trouble.
Two, JNB demand will rise as the lockdown eases in SA. Business travel is what drives JNB.
Three. I don’t think DL would get a sub fleet for just one route. Plus it would seat close to what their 744 sat, and we saw they didn’t need that capacity.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18746
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Mon May 25, 2020 7:45 am

DL717 wrote:
All this debate on the A350 vs. the 777 and it doesn’t seem anyone is considering a couple of things here:

1. The relationship with Virgin Australia gives them codeshare access to Australia.
2. JNB demand has no doubt imploded and will be that way for a while. They can rely on Air France and KLM.
3. 777-8X will fill the 777 void when they can afford them. It’s the perfect plane for what DL wants to do.


1 - Virgin Australia might not exist in a couple of months.

2 - Hasn't DL said they'll restart JNB as soon as they can?

3 - Why would DL go to the effort of ordering more A350s, retiring the entire 777 fleet (and take a significant charge to do so), then order a small fleet of 777-8s at great expense? That really doesn't make much sense. Wouldn't it have been simpler, and a lot cheaper, to just keep the 77Ls? They appear to have decided that the A350 is sufficiently perfect for what DL wants to do.
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.
 
BrianDromey
Posts: 2599
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:23 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Mon May 25, 2020 8:37 am

Interesting thread and shows how much DL sees the world having changed. If the A359 is as limited as some say in DL configuration the relatively low passenger demand will likely mean that DL don’t suffer a payload hit in operational reality. That might change as passenger demand recovers, but later builds are even more capable and DL can already upgrade the weights of their current fleet. Are the LATAM aircraft more capable?

The A359 at DL was supposed to complement the 777 and the 77L in particular. DL didn’t need it to do the furthest and highest of the network, lower weights made sense. With the 777 eliminated all that will change. But I’m sure Airbus will happily sell higher gross weight frames and/or paper upgrade the current fleet.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Mon May 25, 2020 12:04 pm

BrianDromey wrote:
Interesting thread and shows how much DL sees the world having changed. If the A359 is as limited as some say in DL configuration the relatively low passenger demand will likely mean that DL don’t suffer a payload hit in operational reality. That might change as passenger demand recovers, but later builds are even more capable and DL can already upgrade the weights of their current fleet. Are the LATAM aircraft more capable?

The A359 at DL was supposed to complement the 777 and the 77L in particular. DL didn’t need it to do the furthest and highest of the network, lower weights made sense. With the 777 eliminated all that will change. But I’m sure Airbus will happily sell higher gross weight frames and/or paper upgrade the current fleet.

The 350 is really not limited. That narrative was just getting pushed. If the 359 is limited than almost everything is, the 77L can take MZFW to around 15+ hrs. The 787’s and 350’s are in the 12-13 hr range. The efficiency gains on every route far outweigh very minor shortcomings on one

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