DL757NYC wrote:

I don’t think retiring the 777 was the smartest move.

DL757NYC wrote:

I don’t think retiring the 777 was the smartest move.

MIflyer12 wrote:

DL757NYC wrote:

I don’t think retiring the 777 was the smartest move.

You don't keep a fleet type - and a small, very senior pilot group - for one or two routes. DL could block twenty seats forever on a JNB-ATL A350 and still come out way ahead.

DL757NYC wrote:

I would almost guarantee that DL will be looking for used wide bodies.

LAX772LR wrote:

DL757NYC wrote:

I would almost guarantee that DL will be looking for used wide bodies.

I'd just hope you're not foolish enough to ever put money behind such a "guarantee".... because used widebodies is something DL's hardly ever been interested in, throughout its history. Like any airline, they've sniffed around and done their due diligence. But as stated several times before, it's been a quarter of a century since the last time they got one and put it into revenue pax service.

If widebody capacity meant so much to them, they still have A339s (which BTW, have as much range as a 744, if you want them to) set for delivery, and in addition to their four 280Tonne A359s, have upgraded 11 of their formerly-268Tonne A359s to 275 tonne w/v capability.

DL757NYC wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

DL757NYC wrote:

I don’t think retiring the 777 was the smartest move.

You don't keep a fleet type - and a small, very senior pilot group - for one or two routes. DL could block twenty seats forever on a JNB-ATL A350 and still come out way ahead.

I would almost guarantee that DL will be looking for used wide bodies . The 777 didn’t serve one or two routes. It was a versatile aircraft. It would fly Asia to the West Coast then to let’s say JFK then to TLV. Now travel is roaring back. Delta didn’t have much slack in their wide body fleet pre covidfff ft They might save on fuel with the 350’s however if Delta needs more wide bodies there are plenty of 777’s that could be had for a fraction of a new jet. And when did the 777 become this gas guzzler. Delta and I’m sure other airlines are scrambling to fill staffing and equipment needs. Passenger counts at airports are approaching pre COVID levels.

777Mech wrote:

They will however, be getting A350s from LATAM next year.

MIflyer12 wrote:

DL757NYC wrote:

I don’t think retiring the 777 was the smartest move.

You don't keep a fleet type - and a small, very senior pilot group - for one or two routes. DL could block twenty seats forever on a JNB-ATL A350 and still come out way ahead.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

Long haul flights rely disproportionately on premium fares for success. Yes, leisure travel is “roaring back,” but business travel isn’t and ultimately average fares will be finish near historic lows. Even WN is sticking to the idea that the next several years will continue to be a low-fare environment.

DL was aware of this when they retired the 777. It was not a miscalculation; teams of dozens employees with vast experience and fancy degrees ran oodles of scenarios using multiple variables and concluded it was in DL’s best interest to retire the 777 now. We’re a lot further from returning to 2019 than this forum wants to believe.

ElroyJetson wrote:

jayunited wrote:

Heavierthanair wrote:

G'day

With the Delta A350 apparently struggling to make JNB-ATL how much of a payload hit is the UA 787 taking? Anyone out there with payload range comparisons for this trip?

Thanks and Cheers

Peter

For a true comparison I would suggest waiting until international travel returns to normal. Right now since the launch UA has been averaging between 193-210 passengers on our 787s out of JNB this is out of a total of 257 seats (total seat count on Polaris equip 789s is different from 789s with the diamond seats). Also for now we are able to carry cargo out of JNB as well. But there are several factors you need to consider first it is winter in South Africa and secondly like I already pointed out with international restrictions which are having an impact on demand.

Looking at the TOW or TOG over the past 7 days UA's TOW is averaging around 545,600. The 789s UA utilizes on this route have a max TOW of 561,500.

For now United isn't pushing these 789s to there limit out of JNB but lets wait until it's summer in the southern hemisphere I have a feeling at the very least we won't be carrying any cargo out of JNB.

Also EWR-JNB is about 400 nm shorter flight than ATL-JNB. That is roughly 5 tons less fuel UA's 789's have to carry versus the DL flight out of ATL.

CriticalPoint wrote:

Iv been right on max tire speed in the 787. To say that tire speed is not an issue is false.

On a hot day in DEN Iv been well below MTOW and right on Max tire speed.

Agent wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Iv been right on max tire speed in the 787. To say that tire speed is not an issue is false.

On a hot day in DEN Iv been well below MTOW and right on Max tire speed.

I am not sure i got you right, but we are discussing JNB and not DEN? And about the A350 and not the B787?

The limits i stated above are right from the A350 Performance Module out of JNB, so?

Have fun!

jayunited wrote:

WidebodyPTV wrote:

Long haul flights rely disproportionately on premium fares for success. Yes, leisure travel is “roaring back,” but business travel isn’t and ultimately average fares will be finish near historic lows. Even WN is sticking to the idea that the next several years will continue to be a low-fare environment.

DL was aware of this when they retired the 777. It was not a miscalculation; teams of dozens employees with vast experience and fancy degrees ran oodles of scenarios using multiple variables and concluded it was in DL’s best interest to retire the 777 now. We’re a lot further from returning to 2019 than this forum wants to believe.

I think the unanswered question is this; will business and international long haul travel come "roaring back" like we've seen in both the domestic and short haul markets as restrictions are lifted, boarder reopen and more people are vaccinated?

I think it is far to early to know if a miscalculation was made or not. If we look at the domestic and short haul international markets AA, DL, UA and WN all miscalculated how quickly the leisure market would recover.

Could Delta have placed their 777 fleet into long term storage similar to what United did with our 764s? I don't know the answer to that question and I can't speak for DL. I do know in UA's case prior to the PW 777s being grounded UA had no plans on pulling the 764s out of storage before spring or even summer of 2022. Scott Kirby felt like there was no reason to make a hasty decision until we had a clearer picture of how the long haul international and business travel would recover. He felt like long term storage was the best answer and that decision just so happen to be the right one as United now needs some of our 764s to cover for our PW 777s

CriticalPoint wrote:

Agent wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Iv been right on max tire speed in the 787. To say that tire speed is not an issue is false.

On a hot day in DEN Iv been well below MTOW and right on Max tire speed.

I am not sure i got you right, but we are discussing JNB and not DEN? And about the A350 and not the B787?

The limits i stated above are right from the A350 Performance Module out of JNB, so?

Have fun!

What are the tire speeds of the A350

Agent wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Agent wrote:

I am not sure i got you right, but we are discussing JNB and not DEN? And about the A350 and not the B787?

The limits i stated above are right from the A350 Performance Module out of JNB, so?

Have fun!

What are the tire speeds of the A350

Max tire speed is 204kts GS.
VR in JNB in this conditions around 165-170kts.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

This thread reminds me of the infinite number of discussions we had on why the 359 couldn’t serve LAX-SYD, and that DL was so upset they were about to buy the 787 and toss the 359 to the curb.

Literally tens of thousands of hours went into those discussions. How quickly they were forgotten when DL scheduled the aircraft on the route, even though our resident TechOps expert / Starbucks bartista insisted the president of ops personally assured him it was impossible ...

skystar767 wrote:

DL is back to what it was once only thinking ATL. Anderson was the right man for that company not the southern boy they have now. DL needed those 787-9. They could have done JNB and CPT from JFK daily. SAA is out the picture. Smh

ATL is by far its largest hub, so it sort of stands to reason that their primary consideration would be regarding there, particularly in a downturned market.

Ed Bastian is from New York, so not exactly sure what "southern boy" you're referring to.

DL never had 789s on order, so also not sure what "those 787-9" you're referring to. That said, DL had (and continues to have) every opportunity to order 787s, and has thus far not seen reason to do so. If you have numbers to show why that's a mistake, I'd imagine they'd be interested to review them.

DL has already scheduled a return of the entirety their JFK (and ATL, for that matter) African network. If they saw fit to add JNB or CPT from there, they could've done so; but there's no way they're going to give up the S.Florida connections to S.Africa to the European carriers, which is exactly what would happen if they transferred their flights to New York.

There hasn't been all that much of a change in the NYC to S.Africa market: SA's large equipment to one gateway out, UA's medium equipment to two gateways in.

CriticalPoint wrote:

It doesn’t matter what Vr is only GS matters. While I respect you reading from a book I have operational knowledge as a retired 787 Captain.

LAX772LR wrote:

777Mech wrote:

They will however, be getting A350s from LATAM next year.

Nope. DL paid $60M+ to get out of that, more than a year ago.

The four used aircraft will not be acquired. 10 new A350s straight from Airbus (that were slotted for LATAM, but will instead of delivered factory fresh to DL) will.

gloom wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

It doesn’t matter what Vr is only GS matters. While I respect you reading from a book I have operational knowledge as a retired 787 Captain.

Typical density altitude, temperature corrected for CPT would be around 7500ft for typical conditions when Delta departs (ISA+15, 5700ft pressure altitude). That means if Vr is 170kts IAS, GS would be around 196kts.
Still quite a way below max tire speed, even if we need to account for time between rotation and liftoff.

Cheers,
Adam

B757Forever wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

777Mech wrote:

They will however, be getting A350s from LATAM next year.

Nope. DL paid $60M+ to get out of that, more than a year ago.

The four used aircraft will not be acquired. 10 new A350s straight from Airbus (that were slotted for LATAM, but will instead of delivered factory fresh to DL) will.

LAX, there looks to be a new deal in the works with LATAM and the A350 aircraft. We may know details soon.

B757Forever wrote:

LAX, there looks to be a new deal in the works with LATAM and the A350 aircraft. We may know details soon.

Boof02671 wrote:

B757Forever wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Nope. DL paid $60M+ to get out of that, more than a year ago.

The four used aircraft will not be acquired. 10 new A350s straight from Airbus (that were slotted for LATAM, but will instead of delivered factory fresh to DL) will.

LAX, there looks to be a new deal in the works with LATAM and the A350 aircraft. We may know details soon.

LATAM had the leases terminated in bankruptcy, they didn’t own them, they were leased and returned to the leaseholder.

LAX772LR wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

B757Forever wrote:

LAX, there looks to be a new deal in the works with LATAM and the A350 aircraft. We may know details soon.

LATAM had the leases terminated in bankruptcy, they didn’t own them, they were leased and returned to the leaseholder.

Ah, didn't see this.... but yeah, that's what I thought too. LATAM doesn't have A350s to give, so how could there be a "new deal" with them?

jayunited wrote:

Heavierthanair wrote:

G'day

With the Delta A350 apparently struggling to make JNB-ATL how much of a payload hit is the UA 787 taking? Anyone out there with payload range comparisons for this trip?

Thanks and Cheers

Peter

For a true comparison I would suggest waiting until international travel returns to normal. Right now since the launch UA has been averaging between 193-210 passengers on our 787s out of JNB this is out of a total of 257 seats (total seat count on Polaris equip 789s is different from 789s with the diamond seats). Also for now we are able to carry cargo out of JNB as well. But there are several factors you need to consider first it is winter in South Africa and secondly like I already pointed out with international restrictions which are having an impact on demand.

Looking at the TOW or TOG over the past 7 days UA's TOW is averaging around 545,600. The 789s UA utilizes on this route have a max TOW of 561,500.

For now United isn't pushing these 789s to there limit out of JNB but lets wait until it's summer in the southern hemisphere I have a feeling at the very least we won't be carrying any cargo out of JNB.

Boof02671 wrote:

Seems Delta wasn’t honest about eliminating the CPT stop.

https://paxex.aero/delta-cape-town-south-africa-denied/

“ Delta first applied to the SADOT for the Johannesburg-Cape Town coterminalization authority in May 2020. There followed months of repeated requests by the carrier to secure its authority and further outreach by the U.S. Government in support of Delta’s application, which is consistent with the rights under the Agreement, which in fact allows for coterminalized services by carriers of both countries. However, on May 14, 2021, the SADOT informed the Department of its view that the Agreement “does not confer domestic coterminalization rights for designated airlines of both countries,” and that it intended to deny Delta’s application”

Agent wrote:

gloom wrote:

Tire speed was the problem for 777, due to high weight and wing loading (significantly higher takeoff speed). Since 359 is quite a bit lighter, it is simply limited by TOW. Not quite sure if it's limited by takeoff run, or required climb gradient. However, the main reason is "hot and high", which makes up for both higher takeoff speeds, and lower acceleration.

It is limited by either obstacle or brake energy in JNB. Field length and tire speed are no factor.
A350 cannot takeoff with MTOW, 270t-ish should be possible, depending on temperature and PA.

Lootess wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

Seems Delta wasn’t honest about eliminating the CPT stop.

https://paxex.aero/delta-cape-town-south-africa-denied/

“ Delta first applied to the SADOT for the Johannesburg-Cape Town coterminalization authority in May 2020. There followed months of repeated requests by the carrier to secure its authority and further outreach by the U.S. Government in support of Delta’s application, which is consistent with the rights under the Agreement, which in fact allows for coterminalized services by carriers of both countries. However, on May 14, 2021, the SADOT informed the Department of its view that the Agreement “does not confer domestic coterminalization rights for designated airlines of both countries,” and that it intended to deny Delta’s application”

Technically Delta was in the DOT filing for re-instating the South Africa frequencies:

As a result of commercial, operational, and market developments making it feasible for Delta to operate a direct return routing of Atlanta-Johannesburg-Atlanta using 306-seat Airbus A350-900 aircraft, Delta no longer plans to operate the the triangle routing of Atlanta- Johannesburg-Cape Town-Atlanta. Delta plans to commence this new service pattern starting August 1, 2021, assuming no material changes occur in the travel restrictions imposed by either country due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Lootess wrote:

But here we are committed to the A339 for transpacific

Lootess wrote:

Delta framed as taking the A359s off of LATAM but they were really leases, so they were going to take them over, and that might explain the penalty they originally paid.

Boof02671 wrote:

Seems Delta wasn’t honest about eliminating the CPT stop.

• The airline received more 280tonne A359s
• The airline wasn't granted co-Terminal status
• Australia/China/India (SYD, BOM, and ATL-PVG being the other three routes exclusive to the 772LRs' capabilities) are all no-goes for US passengers right now.

LAX772LR wrote:

DL757NYC wrote:

I would almost guarantee that DL will be looking for used wide bodies.

I'd just hope you're not foolish enough to ever put money behind such a "guarantee".... because used widebodies is something DL's hardly ever been interested in, throughout its history.

Like any airline, they've sniffed around and done their due diligence. But as stated several times before, it's been a quarter of a century since the last time they got one and put it into revenue pax service.

If widebody capacity meant so much to them, they still have A339s (which BTW, now offer as much range as a 744, if you desire them to) set for delivery--- and in addition to having upgraded 11 of their formerly-268Tonne A359s to 275 tonne w/v capability; they have their four 280Tonne A359s which have the capability to do essentially anything the 772LRs would've done, hence this thread.

meh130 wrote:

Is it possible some of DL's later A350s are more capable versions (higher MTOW, additional fuel, etc.)?

meh130 wrote:

Delta bought many used L-1011s, including a large number from post-bankrupt Eastern. Delta also purchased a handful of used 767s.

xcltflyboy wrote:

Or, is it just the 359's general capabilities?

Cubsrule wrote:

I’ve not seen specific numbers for the 350, but generally the limiting factor out of JNB is tire speed.

LAX772LR wrote:

That said, the problem with JNB isn't range, it's tire speed-- you'll likely exceed your tire rating before you get off the ground.

CriticalPoint wrote:

Iv been right on max tire speed in the 787. To say that tire speed is not an issue is false.

CriticalPoint wrote:

Agent wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

What are the tire speeds of the A350

Max tire speed is 204kts GS.
VR in JNB in this conditions around 165-170kts.

Exactly the same as a 787. So my comparison works on all levels.

It doesn’t matter what Vr is only GS matters. While I respect you reading from a book I have operational knowledge as a retired 787 Captain.

zeke wrote:

xcltflyboy wrote:

Or, is it just the 359's general capabilities?

Based upon todays weather the A359 would be limited to a takeoff of 270 tonnes out of JNB, trip fuel today to ATL would be around 95 tonnes (flight time of 16 hrs), using BNA as an alternate, contingency and final reserve total fuel load loaded would be around 103 tonnes, takeoff with 102.5 tonnes. That means ZFW would be limited to 167.5 tonnes, assuming their OEW is around 140 tonnes with catering loaded for this sector means payload available would be 27.5 tonnes, that would mean they would need to block off around 26 seats.

If it was flying to ERW it could go with all 301 seats filled because EWR is not as far as ATL, headwinds are slightly less, and the alternate airport is closer.

Cubsrule wrote:

I’ve not seen specific numbers for the 350, but generally the limiting factor out of JNB is tire speed.

LAX772LR wrote:

That said, the problem with JNB isn't range, it's tire speed-- you'll likely exceed your tire rating before you get off the ground.

CriticalPoint wrote:

Iv been right on max tire speed in the 787. To say that tire speed is not an issue is false.

Tyre speed is not an issue for the A359 out of JNB, using todays data for example V2 would be around 164 kts, which gives you a ground speed of 178 kts, a 26 kt buffer on the 204 kt limit.

GSOtoIND wrote:

zeke wrote:

xcltflyboy wrote:

Or, is it just the 359's general capabilities?

Based upon todays weather the A359 would be limited to a takeoff of 270 tonnes out of JNB, trip fuel today to ATL would be around 95 tonnes (flight time of 16 hrs), using BNA as an alternate, contingency and final reserve total fuel load loaded would be around 103 tonnes, takeoff with 102.5 tonnes. That means ZFW would be limited to 167.5 tonnes, assuming their OEW is around 140 tonnes with catering loaded for this sector means payload available would be 27.5 tonnes, that would mean they would need to block off around 26 seats.

If it was flying to ERW it could go with all 301 seats filled because EWR is not as far as ATL, headwinds are slightly less, and the alternate airport is closer.

Cubsrule wrote:

I’ve not seen specific numbers for the 350, but generally the limiting factor out of JNB is tire speed.

LAX772LR wrote:

That said, the problem with JNB isn't range, it's tire speed-- you'll likely exceed your tire rating before you get off the ground.

CriticalPoint wrote:

Iv been right on max tire speed in the 787. To say that tire speed is not an issue is false.

Tyre speed is not an issue for the A359 out of JNB, using todays data for example V2 would be around 164 kts, which gives you a ground speed of 178 kts, a 26 kt buffer on the 204 kt limit.

How much more payload could be carried using a closer alternate like BHM or GSP? They are 134 and 153 miles, respectively, from ATL vs. 214 for BNA. CHA is even closer but I'm not sure if it's a port of entry. GSP I know sees international *cargo* flights on a daily or near-daily basis so they should be equipped to manage international diversions.

LAX772LR wrote:

Lootess wrote:

But here we are committed to the A339 for transpacific

Why are you saying that like it's a bad thing?

The newer A359s will offer the same range as a 744; with 3 different types of seat, and only 1/4th of them being middle-seats in Y.
What 787 configuration out there today can make the latter claim?

No, the penalty was the contractual exit fee for DL to get out of taking 4 used A350s.
All of the incoming birds from the LATAM deal will instead be delivered brand-new to DL.

How's that "dishonest"....?

From the time these flights were announced, to now, multiple things changed:

• The airline received more 280tonne A359s
• The airline wasn't granted co-Terminal status
• Australia/China/India (SYD, BOM, and ATL-PVG being the other three routes exclusive to the 772LRs' capabilities) are all no-goes for US passengers right now.

It makes perfect sense that with unapproved authority, increased number of powerful aircraft, nowhere else requiring to send them.... that they dedicate them to JNB, and thus enable a rountrip nonstop.

zeke wrote:

xcltflyboy wrote:

Or, is it just the 359's general capabilities?

Based upon todays weather the A359 would be limited to a takeoff of 270 tonnes out of JNB, trip fuel today to ATL would be around 95 tonnes (flight time of 16 hrs), using BNA as an alternate, contingency and final reserve total fuel load loaded would be around 103 tonnes, takeoff with 102.5 tonnes. That means ZFW would be limited to 167.5 tonnes, assuming their OEW is around 140 tonnes with catering loaded for this sector means payload available would be 27.5 tonnes, that would mean they would need to block off around 26 seats.

If it was flying to ERW it could go with all 301 seats filled because EWR is not as far as ATL, headwinds are slightly less, and the alternate airport is closer.

jmscsc wrote:

From the Points Guy website:

https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-air ... l-trouble/

DL757NYC wrote:

I don’t think retiring the 777 was the smartest move.

GSOtoIND wrote:

How much more payload could be carried using a closer alternate like BHM or GSP?

zeke wrote:

xcltflyboy wrote:

Or, is it just the 359's general capabilities?

Based upon todays weather the A359 would be limited to a takeoff of 270 tonnes out of JNB, trip fuel today to ATL would be around 95 tonnes (flight time of 16 hrs), using BNA as an alternate, contingency and final reserve total fuel load loaded would be around 103 tonnes, takeoff with 102.5 tonnes. That means ZFW would be limited to 167.5 tonnes, assuming their OEW is around 140 tonnes with catering loaded for this sector means payload available would be 27.5 tonnes, that would mean they would need to block off around 26 seats.

If it was flying to ERW it could go with all 301 seats filled because EWR is not as far as ATL, headwinds are slightly less, and the alternate airport is closer.

Cubsrule wrote:

I’ve not seen specific numbers for the 350, but generally the limiting factor out of JNB is tire speed.

LAX772LR wrote:

That said, the problem with JNB isn't range, it's tire speed-- you'll likely exceed your tire rating before you get off the ground.

CriticalPoint wrote:

Iv been right on max tire speed in the 787. To say that tire speed is not an issue is false.

Tyre speed is not an issue for the A359 out of JNB, using todays data for example V2 would be around 164 kts, which gives you a ground speed of 178 kts, a 26 kt buffer on the 204 kt limit.

evanb wrote:

jmscsc wrote:

From the Points Guy website:

https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-air ... l-trouble/

I find this a strange interpretation of the BASA by South Africa since SAA operated JNB-CPT-MIA-JNB for many years under the same agreement (it hasn't been changed since with the exception of additional frequencies which were added by an addendum, not amendment). I guess if Delta felt very strongly about this and was willing to take some time they could have pushed USDOT seek arbitration where they would likely win.

Web500sjc wrote:

Obviously the removal of the CPT stop is because of the South African Government.

DL has multiple A359 weight variants (for my purposes I will assume 275T and 280T). If the A359 is limited to something less than 275T out of JNB, is there any benefit to having a 280T MTOW dedicated to the route?