DL drops Cape Town from JNB-ATL schedule

zeke · Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:23 am

jayunited wrote:
Are you saying if Delta were to switch this flight from ATL over to EWR they could go completely full out of JNB and still have ZFW remaining to carry cargo?

No the numbers I did would not carry cargo out of JNB, the winds I got when I ran the plan had over 30 kts average headwind. The flight time from JNB or CPT to ATL was almost identical, just CPT allowed takeoff at 280 tonnes and not 270 tonnes from JNB, so CPT could take possibly 10t cargo.

CPT to EWR was about 45 faster than CPT to ATL (average headwind just over 20 kts), probably a cargo capability of around 16 tonnes there.

zeke · Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:31 am

jagraham wrote:
For all the other 777 routes DL has, the A359 can carry what the 777 can carry, and save ~10% on fuel.

The difference is greater than 10%. To demonstrate this I just ran a 77L plan JNB to ATL for current conditions, the trip fuel was 113 tonnes for the 77L, and around 93 tonnes on the A359, so the 77L on this route with yesterday’s conditions would be 21.5% greater trip fuel.

zeke · Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:39 am

Web500sjc wrote:
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?

The 280 tonne aircraft would permit more cargo to JNB, they are also a little bit lighter as they incorporated a number of -1000 features into them like the composite door frames. They are also slightly more fuel efficient with the wing twist.

zeke · Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:42 am

9252fly wrote:
The difference in your example, SAA was operating between two different cities within South Africa, whereas DL was requesting approval to operate between two cities in a foreign country. It's not uncommon for foreign airlines operating into the US to operate a flight to and from different hubs, ie, LH FRA - JFK - MUC. I don't believe there are any restrictions in bilateral agreements for that type of routing. In the case of DL they could operate ATL - JNB - JFK.

Normally the agreements would not permit the sale of internal tickets JNB-CPT. I would wager a lot of people going to JNB actually want to end up in CPT, it’s a very pretty part of the world.

MIflyer12 · Wed Jun 23, 2021 4:15 am

Polot 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.

Seniority has nothing to do with it. Those pilots are still senior and still at DL unless they quit or retired.

Sure it does. Senior people are more expensive people. Fleet fragmentation means fragmented pilot work groups. Manning gets rounded up - integer constraints. I'm not arguing that 777 manning was more expensive than A350, but 18 777 and 32 A350 is clearly a more expensive proposition than 50 A350.

Lootess · Wed Jun 23, 2021 9:03 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
Polot wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
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.

Seniority has nothing to do with it. Those pilots are still senior and still at DL unless they quit or retired.

Sure it does. Senior people are more expensive people. Fleet fragmentation means fragmented pilot work groups. Manning gets rounded up - integer constraints. I'm not arguing that 777 manning was more expensive than A350, but 18 777 and 32 A350 is clearly a more expensive proposition than 50 A350.

Aside from retirements, the lost time of retraining pilots on another type is a monetary case to make. It certainly was also issue with the fast MD retirement and A220s, but I suppose every carrier thought the flying drought was going to be much worse. But with a good sized A359 order book, along with proactively moving up deliveries, and taking more frames from other sources, the 777 retirement starts to look better as capacity returns.

B757Forever · Wed Jun 23, 2021 9:12 pm

zeke wrote:
jagraham wrote:
For all the other 777 routes DL has, the A359 can carry what the 777 can carry, and save ~10% on fuel.

The difference is greater than 10%. To demonstrate this I just ran a 77L plan JNB to ATL for current conditions, the trip fuel was 113 tonnes for the 77L, and around 93 tonnes on the A359, so the 77L on this route with yesterday’s conditions would be 21.5% greater trip fuel.

When the 777 retirements were announced, what was communicated internally at DL was that the A350 had a 22% fuel savings over the 777. Quite consistent with your calculations.

9252fly · Wed Jun 23, 2021 10:38 pm

zeke wrote:
jagraham wrote:
For all the other 777 routes DL has, the A359 can carry what the 777 can carry, and save ~10% on fuel.

The difference is greater than 10%. To demonstrate this I just ran a 77L plan JNB to ATL for current conditions, the trip fuel was 113 tonnes for the 77L, and around 93 tonnes on the A359, so the 77L on this route with yesterday’s conditions would be 21.5% greater trip fuel.

Do you have rough idea what the value of 20 tonnes of fuel is worth in USD? Gives a better sense of what that means to the bean counters. Obviously, there are trade-offs in payload when comparing the two aircraft types, however the fuel savings in certain circumstances could potentially exceed the lost revenue.

zeke · Wed Jun 23, 2021 11:11 pm

9252fly wrote:
Do you have rough idea what the value of 20 tonnes of fuel is worth in USD? Gives a better sense of what that means to the bean counters. Obviously, there are trade-offs in payload when comparing the two aircraft types, however the fuel savings in certain circumstances could potentially exceed the lost revenue.

Currently around US$600 / tonne in Africa, $12000 per flight.

From https://www.iata.org/en/publications/ec ... l-monitor/

9252fly · Wed Jun 23, 2021 11:34 pm

zeke wrote:
9252fly wrote:
Do you have rough idea what the value of 20 tonnes of fuel is worth in USD? Gives a better sense of what that means to the bean counters. Obviously, there are trade-offs in payload when comparing the two aircraft types, however the fuel savings in certain circumstances could potentially exceed the lost revenue.

Currently around US$600 / tonne in Africa, $12000 per flight.

From https://www.iata.org/en/publications/ec ... l-monitor/

Thank you, that was very informative.

evanb · Wed Jun 23, 2021 11:45 pm

9252fly wrote:
The difference in your example, SAA was operating between two different cities within South Africa, whereas DL was requesting approval to operate between two cities in a foreign country. It's not uncommon for foreign airlines operating into the US to operate a flight to and from different hubs, ie, LH FRA - JFK - MUC. I don't believe there are any restrictions in bilateral agreements for that type of routing. In the case of DL they could operate ATL - JNB - JFK.

And later SAA operated JNB-ATL-FLL-JNB.

N649DL · Thu Jun 24, 2021 12:03 am

xcltflyboy wrote:
Can someone explain what improvements DL's 359s have that make this nonstop route doable? Or, is it just the 359's general capabilities? Said another way, were DL's 359s modified for this specific mission?

According to Wiki, A359 has a max range of 8,100nm compares to the 777LR which is higher at 8,555nm. ATL-JNB is at 7,334nm so both are within the range but now that the DL 777LRs are gone, I'm willing to bet it might have something to do with cargo and/or the fact that the tag on to CPT isn't economically viable at the moment (should it confirmed to be cancelled as a tag on routing.)

DL has been operating ATL - JNB / CPT for over a decade, whereas UA is a newcomer to the market out of EWR. Those are two separate US markets in general so I doubt this really has much to do with UA at all. EWR-JNB is also longer at 7,990nm and you can bet that if UA can't make this route work out quickly, they're not going to stay in it.

DL757NYC wrote:
I don’t think retiring the 777 was the smartest move.

Which variant? I think DL only had 9 of the 777ERs (can't recall which routes they were even being used for before they were retired) but it looks like majority of the 777LRs are stored should they ever want to bring them back. The LRs were awesome, but the A350 seems dope as well.

jagraham · Thu Jun 24, 2021 12:08 am

zeke wrote:
jagraham wrote:
For all the other 777 routes DL has, the A359 can carry what the 777 can carry, and save ~10% on fuel.

The difference is greater than 10%. To demonstrate this I just ran a 77L plan JNB to ATL for current conditions, the trip fuel was 113 tonnes for the 77L, and around 93 tonnes on the A359, so the 77L on this route with yesterday’s conditions would be 21.5% greater trip fuel.

What are the payloads?

zeke · Thu Jun 24, 2021 12:23 am

jagraham wrote:
What are the payloads?

Almost identical.

jagraham · Thu Jun 24, 2021 12:35 am

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!

I think CriticalPoint's point is that at DEN, which in the summer at least, has similar hot and high issues to JNB. And flying a 787 out of DEN he hits max tire speed although he is "well below" MTOW.

It's reasonable to believe the planners understand that the 789 has (max tire speed) limits that prevent MTOW takeoffs despite the fact that DEN has runway lengths up to 16000 ft.

It's also reasonable to infer that similar situations happen at JNB despite runways up to 14000 ft.

One situation where the airport conditions are similar enough that situations at one airport can be said to reflect situations at the other airport.

jagraham · Thu Jun 24, 2021 12:37 am

zeke wrote:
jagraham wrote:
What are the payloads?

Almost identical.

please specify

9252fly · Thu Jun 24, 2021 12:42 am

zeke wrote:
jagraham wrote:
What are the payloads?

Almost identical.

So, in simple terms, the A350 was USD $12,000 cheaper to operate with the same payload. It's terrible extrapolation, but that's $4,380,000 at per year, assuming a daily flight.

9252fly · Thu Jun 24, 2021 12:46 am

evanb wrote:
9252fly wrote:
The difference in your example, SAA was operating between two different cities within South Africa, whereas DL was requesting approval to operate between two cities in a foreign country. It's not uncommon for foreign airlines operating into the US to operate a flight to and from different hubs, ie, LH FRA - JFK - MUC. I don't believe there are any restrictions in bilateral agreements for that type of routing. In the case of DL they could operate ATL - JNB - JFK.

And later SAA operated JNB-ATL-FLL-JNB.

You're taking me on a trip down memory lane, so right you are. I believe SA were in some sort of codeshare, or marketing agreement with DL back then?

evanb · Thu Jun 24, 2021 1:38 am

9252fly wrote:
You're taking me on a trip down memory lane, so right you are. I believe SA were in some sort of codeshare, or marketing agreement with DL back then?

This is taking me down memory lane too! When they returned to the US in the early 90s they operated JNB-SID-JFK. They then added JNB-CPT-MIA codesharing with AA. When they switched to Delta, they switched MIA for ATL (but included FLL as a tag for a short period). When they later joined Star Alliance, ATL then switched to IAD. The tech-stops (combinations of CPT, SID, LOS, DKR and ACC) varied over the years. The only consistent ports were JNB and JFK.

zeke · Thu Jun 24, 2021 2:06 am

jagraham wrote:
please specify

If you care to read my post at the top of this page I went into more than enough detail.

zeke · Thu Jun 24, 2021 2:08 am

9252fly wrote:

So, in simple terms, the A350 was USD $12,000 cheaper to operate with the same payload. It's terrible extrapolation, but that's $4,380,000 at per year, assuming a daily flight.

You would need to add the savings on the sector from ATL to JNB

9252fly · Thu Jun 24, 2021 2:21 am

zeke wrote:
9252fly wrote:

So, in simple terms, the A350 was USD $12,000 cheaper to operate with the same payload. It's terrible extrapolation, but that's $4,380,000 at per year, assuming a daily flight.

You would need to add the savings on the sector from ATL to JNB

Okay, x 2 is $8,760,000. I'm no airline bean counter, but that's a good chunk of change.

9252fly · Thu Jun 24, 2021 2:26 am

evanb wrote:
9252fly wrote:
You're taking me on a trip down memory lane, so right you are. I believe SA were in some sort of codeshare, or marketing agreement with DL back then?

This is taking me down memory lane too! When they returned to the US in the early 90s they operated JNB-SID-JFK. They then added JNB-CPT-MIA codesharing with AA. When they switched to Delta, they switched MIA for ATL (but included FLL as a tag for a short period). When they later joined Star Alliance, ATL then switched to IAD. The tech-stops (combinations of CPT, SID, LOS, DKR and ACC) varied over the years. The only consistent ports were JNB and JFK.

Talk about switching bed partners, AA to DL and then UA.

zeke · Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:45 am

9252fly wrote:

Okay, x 2 is $8,760,000. I'm no airline bean counter, but that's a good chunk of change.

It’s far too simplistic, one would need to take account of the ownership/lease costs, crew costs, enroute/landing/gate charges and a whole lot of other factors to see the overall benefits.

Fuel burn or capability in isolation is not directly correlated with the aircraft profitability, it’s just part of the overall picture. Just look at how long they successfully operated the MD80/90 series for.

The 77L was cheaper to purchase, operate, and carried more payload than the 77W, yet more airlines bought 77Ws.

I don’t know anything about the DL 77L maintenance history, the aircraft may have been approaching a large maintenance check, storage fees etc.

It was also an easy way to cut short term costs, I think they have established that they can secure additional A350s in relatively short notice if desired.

evanb · Thu Jun 24, 2021 5:08 am

zeke wrote:
9252fly wrote:

Okay, x 2 is $8,760,000. I'm no airline bean counter, but that's a good chunk of change.

It’s far too simplistic, one would need to take account of the ownership/lease costs, crew costs, enroute/landing/gate charges and a whole lot of other factors to see the overall benefits.

Fuel burn or capability in isolation is not directly correlated with the aircraft profitability, it’s just part of the overall picture. Just look at how long they successfully operated the MD80/90 series for.

The 77L was cheaper to purchase, operate, and carried more payload than the 77W, yet more airlines bought 77Ws.

I don’t know anything about the DL 77L maintenance history, the aircraft may have been approaching a large maintenance check, storage fees etc.

It was also an easy way to cut short term costs, I think they have established that they can secure additional A350s in relatively short notice if desired.

Just to double down on this. In Delta's last full year pre-COVID, fuel accounted for only 21% of operating expenses. There is a lot more than fuel that determines the profitability of a flight. The fuel savings are certainly significant (also increases as fuel prices rise), but the calculus is more complex.

evanb · Thu Jun 24, 2021 5:11 am

9252fly wrote:
Talk about switching bed partners, AA to DL and then UA.

Add in codeshares with B6 and AC, and briefly also a codeshare with US before the merger.

LAX772LR · Thu Jun 24, 2021 8:48 am

evanb wrote:
9252fly wrote:
The difference in your example, SAA was operating between two different cities within South Africa, whereas DL was requesting approval to operate between two cities in a foreign country. It's not uncommon for foreign airlines operating into the US to operate a flight to and from different hubs, ie, LH FRA - JFK - MUC. I don't believe there are any restrictions in bilateral agreements for that type of routing. In the case of DL they could operate ATL - JNB - JFK.

And later SAA operated JNB-ATL-FLL-JNB.

The routing was JNB-CPT-FLL-ATL-JNB.

The whole purpose was to use CPT's lower elevation, and FLL to pick up S.Florida's African diaspora after the switch from MIA. After 9/11, that was no longer feasible, so FLL was dropped. Then ATL was later switched to IAD.

The eastbound ATL-JNB was at the time, the longest scheduled nonstop segment ever operated by any airline, edging out CO's then-new EWR-HKG, which was the longest scheduled nonstop roundtrip.

scbriml · Thu Jun 24, 2021 11:04 am

B757Forever wrote:
zeke wrote:
jagraham wrote:
For all the other 777 routes DL has, the A359 can carry what the 777 can carry, and save ~10% on fuel.

The difference is greater than 10%. To demonstrate this I just ran a 77L plan JNB to ATL for current conditions, the trip fuel was 113 tonnes for the 77L, and around 93 tonnes on the A359, so the 77L on this route with yesterday’s conditions would be 21.5% greater trip fuel.

When the 777 retirements were announced, what was communicated internally at DL was that the A350 had a 22% fuel savings over the 777. Quite consistent with your calculations.

The percentage difference changes depending which frame of reference you use. Using the specific numbers that Zeke supplied we can say either:

The A359 burns 17.7% less fuel than the B77L (20/113x100)
or
The B77L burns 21.5% more fuel than the A359 (20/93x100)

So in this specific example, the fuel saving is 17.7%. I could see across the full spectrum of A350 vs 777 operations, that the 22% DL gave could be spot on.

zeke · Thu Jun 24, 2021 4:30 pm

evanb wrote:
Just to double down on this. In Delta's last full year pre-COVID, fuel accounted for only 21% of operating expenses. There is a lot more than fuel that determines the profitability of a flight. The fuel savings are certainly significant (also increases as fuel prices rise), but the calculus is more complex.

On a long flight like this, fuel is more like 50% of the cost, 15-20% is more of a short haul value.

scbriml wrote:
So in this specific example, the fuel saving is 17.7%. I could see across the full spectrum of A350 vs 777 operations, that the 22% DL gave could be spot on.

I haven’t seen the raw DL numbers that are being discussed, so I don’t know their basis. My numbers were just block fuel, if DL was doing it on a block fuel per seat basis, the A359 I think was configured with 10-20 additional seats which changes the numbers again.

T54A · Thu Jun 24, 2021 7:08 pm

It is important to note that the Air Services Licensing Council (a function of the Dept of Transport) has not been active since March 2021. It appears that this is a deliberate move by the SA Gov to prevent new players from entering the SA market that was occupied by SAA and SAX before. By not convening the ASLC, the Gov is simply refusing to here new applications and/or objections......without having to accept or refuse applications on merit.
Unfortunately an unintentional consequence of this is that small individual starts ups (crop spraying), who have spent loads of cash, cannot get an AOC until the ASLC convenes again. So the SA Gov is essentially preventing it's own citizens from conducting business and earning a living.

Lootess · Thu Jun 24, 2021 7:47 pm

T54A wrote:
It is important to note that the Air Services Licensing Council (a function of the Dept of Transport) has not been active since March 2021. It appears that this is a deliberate move by the SA Gov to prevent new players from entering the SA market that was occupied by SAA and SAX before. By not convening the ASLC, the Gov is simply refusing to here new applications and/or objections......without having to accept or refuse applications on merit.
Unfortunately an unintentional consequence of this is that small individual starts ups (crop spraying), who have spent loads of cash, cannot get an AOC until the ASLC convenes again. So the SA Gov is essentially preventing it's own citizens from conducting business and earning a living.

It reminds me of the Nigeria treatment and how they denied Delta from flying JFK-LOS for a long time in-addition to ATL-LOS because they had a Nigerian flag carrier that wanted to fly the route. Never mind the government complaints to Delta about the equipment when they used a 763ER on the route, part of why it's an A330 route. The sprit of the open skies bilaterals get pushed to their limits when these kind of government interventions take place.

My understanding on South Africa is that there is only up to 11 frequencies for US carriers allowed in the current bilateral, and Delta mentioned this in their DOT filing.

9252fly · Thu Jun 24, 2021 8:37 pm

T54A wrote:
It is important to note that the Air Services Licensing Council (a function of the Dept of Transport) has not been active since March 2021. It appears that this is a deliberate move by the SA Gov to prevent new players from entering the SA market that was occupied by SAA and SAX before. By not convening the ASLC, the Gov is simply refusing to here new applications and/or objections......without having to accept or refuse applications on merit.
Unfortunately an unintentional consequence of this is that small individual starts ups (crop spraying), who have spent loads of cash, cannot get an AOC until the ASLC convenes again. So the SA Gov is essentially preventing it's own citizens from conducting business and earning a living.

Yeah, the SA government is trying to protect SA route authorities as the airline has not flown for so long that their rights to certain routes have technically lapsed. There are a number of privately owned airlines within South Africa that would like to operate many of those routes, however with no Air Services Licensing Council to release ( legally and rightfully ) those lapsed route authorities, we have this problem.

evanb · Fri Jun 25, 2021 12:20 am

Lootess wrote:
My understanding on South Africa is that there is only up to 11 frequencies for US carriers allowed in the current bilateral, and Delta mentioned this in their DOT filing.

I think they are referring to 11 frequencies available to them. The bilateral allows 21 weekly frequencies by each side. United currently holds 10 (7 to JNB, 3 to CPT). That means Delta would be limited to 11.

SteelChair · Fri Jun 25, 2021 8:37 am

The landing fees should also be lower for the 350, given that they weigh less. Not sure about overflight charges. And although Delta pays pilots based upon weight, I believe the pay scale is the same as the 777.

inkjet7 · Fri Jun 25, 2021 10:02 am

DL757NYC wrote:
Delta and I’m sure other airlines are scrambling to fill staffing and equipment needs. Passenger counts at airports are approaching pre COVID levels.

Maybe in the U.S.? Not so much in Europe. It's getting better, but intercontinental traffic is still mostly freight.

zeke · Fri Jun 25, 2021 5:01 pm

SteelChair wrote:
And although Delta pays pilots based upon weight, I believe the pay scale is the same as the 777.

That is what this would suggest https://www.aviationinterviews.com/pilo ... es-27.html

MIflyer12 · Fri Jun 25, 2021 5:50 pm

T54A wrote:
It is important to note that the Air Services Licensing Council (a function of the Dept of Transport) has not been active since March 2021. It appears that this is a deliberate move by the SA Gov to prevent new players from entering the SA market that was occupied by SAA and SAX before. By not convening the ASLC, the Gov is simply refusing to here new applications and/or objections......without having to accept or refuse applications on merit.

An aggressive U.S. State Department could fix that quickly, should it want to apply the hammer(s). Whether they want to apply force in a strictly commercial matter is a different question.

majano · Fri Jun 25, 2021 6:52 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
T54A wrote:
It is important to note that the Air Services Licensing Council (a function of the Dept of Transport) has not been active since March 2021. It appears that this is a deliberate move by the SA Gov to prevent new players from entering the SA market that was occupied by SAA and SAX before. By not convening the ASLC, the Gov is simply refusing to here new applications and/or objections......without having to accept or refuse applications on merit.

An aggressive U.S. State Department could fix that quickly, should it want to apply the hammer(s). Whether they want to apply force in a strictly commercial matter is a different question.

We are veering dangerously off topic, but what "force" do you have in mind here?

micstatic · Fri Jun 25, 2021 7:03 pm

majano wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
T54A wrote:
It is important to note that the Air Services Licensing Council (a function of the Dept of Transport) has not been active since March 2021. It appears that this is a deliberate move by the SA Gov to prevent new players from entering the SA market that was occupied by SAA and SAX before. By not convening the ASLC, the Gov is simply refusing to here new applications and/or objections......without having to accept or refuse applications on merit.

An aggressive U.S. State Department could fix that quickly, should it want to apply the hammer(s). Whether they want to apply force in a strictly commercial matter is a different question.

We are veering dangerously off topic, but what "force" do you have in mind here?

Well they could just ban South African from flying to the US.

9252fly · Fri Jun 25, 2021 7:58 pm

micstatic wrote:
majano wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:

An aggressive U.S. State Department could fix that quickly, should it want to apply the hammer(s). Whether they want to apply force in a strictly commercial matter is a different question.

We are veering dangerously off topic, but what "force" do you have in mind here?

Well they could just ban South African from flying to the US.

It's unlikely SA will ever return to the US and debatable if they'll ever be anything more than a domestic carrier in future. If all goes well on the domestic side, they may expand into sub-Saharan routes over the next few years. DL request for CPT should not have been an issue, unfortunately the situation with SA is distracting the South African government who should have liquidated the airline; pride seems to have got in the way.

majano · Fri Jun 25, 2021 8:25 pm

9252fly wrote:
micstatic wrote:
majano wrote:
We are veering dangerously off topic, but what "force" do you have in mind here?

Well they could just ban South African from flying to the US.

It's unlikely SA will ever return to the US and debatable if they'll ever be anything more than a domestic carrier in future. If all goes well on the domestic side, they may expand into sub-Saharan routes over the next few years. DL request for CPT should not have been an issue, unfortunately the situation with SA is distracting the South African government who should have liquidated the airline; pride seems to have got in the way.

Although this is somewhat optimistic, I agree with the overall view. SAA is in coffin corner (and this might prove to be optimistic too).

evanb · Sat Jun 26, 2021 3:22 am

micstatic wrote:
Well they could just ban South African from flying to the US.

Banning SA wouldn't make sense since SA are currently not flying to the US and unlikely to anytime soon. Furthermore, it would likely be a poor strategic move since the SA government would likely reciprocate. The better strategic decision would be to escalate diplomatic efforts or seek arbitration on the matter.

zeke · Sat Jun 26, 2021 4:08 am

9252fly wrote:

It's unlikely SA will ever return to the US and debatable if they'll ever be anything more than a domestic carrier in future. If all goes well on the domestic side, they may expand into sub-Saharan routes over the next few years. DL request for CPT should not have been an issue, unfortunately the situation with SA is distracting the South African government who should have liquidated the airline; pride seems to have got in the way.

I think a carrot would go a lot further than a stick here, eg code share with SAA on the flight. DL would not be required to market the SAA tickets, however it would give SAA hypothetical market access to the US.

evanb · Sat Jun 26, 2021 4:49 am

zeke wrote:
I think a carrot would go a lot further than a stick here, eg code share with SAA on the flight. DL would not be required to market the SAA tickets, however it would give SAA hypothetical market access to the US.

SAA already have (had) an extensive codesharing arrangement with UA (and B4). One of the challenges on the US side is that there isn't likely a united front again the South African position. It's much easier for the US authorities to push back if there is a broad consensus from US airlines for the pushback given the potential negative externalities.

onwFan · Sat Jun 26, 2021 6:29 am

zeke wrote:
9252fly wrote:

It's unlikely SA will ever return to the US and debatable if they'll ever be anything more than a domestic carrier in future. If all goes well on the domestic side, they may expand into sub-Saharan routes over the next few years. DL request for CPT should not have been an issue, unfortunately the situation with SA is distracting the South African government who should have liquidated the airline; pride seems to have got in the way.

I think a carrot would go a lot further than a stick here, eg code share with SAA on the flight. DL would not be required to market the SAA tickets, however it would give SAA hypothetical market access to the US.

Star Alliance is very restrictive in terms of partnerships with carriers from other alliances, specifically when there is already an existing carrier from that country; and will veto such a partnership. The only cross-alliance partnership I can think of with such a conflict is between SQ and AS (and the one between LH/LX and JJ when O6 was a Star member).

Lootess · Sat Jun 26, 2021 6:44 am

I found an old, beautiful Delta in-flight video when they started flying to JNB during the 2006-2007 international push.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKTEnOg-6k0

I remember when SAA was flying to ATL back in the day, there was always a lot of codeshare luggage on DL ATL-FLL as South Florida does have a large South African representation.

T773ER · Sat Jul 17, 2021 12:35 pm

zeke wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
And although Delta pays pilots based upon weight, I believe the pay scale is the same as the 777.

That is what this would suggest https://www.aviationinterviews.com/pilo ... es-27.html

I'm not sure where they got this info but its not correct.

https://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/air ... _air_lines

This is a much more accurate picture of the current hourly rates.

Aaron747 · Sat Jul 17, 2021 12:40 pm

zeke wrote:
9252fly wrote:
The difference in your example, SAA was operating between two different cities within South Africa, whereas DL was requesting approval to operate between two cities in a foreign country. It's not uncommon for foreign airlines operating into the US to operate a flight to and from different hubs, ie, LH FRA - JFK - MUC. I don't believe there are any restrictions in bilateral agreements for that type of routing. In the case of DL they could operate ATL - JNB - JFK.

Normally the agreements would not permit the sale of internal tickets JNB-CPT. I would wager a lot of people going to JNB actually want to end up in CPT, it’s a very pretty part of the world.

This is spot on - business or having relatives there is the only reason to visit JNB. CPT on the other hand is one of the most beautiful natural settings for a city I have ever seen.

N717TW · Sat Jul 17, 2021 5:33 pm

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

Not sure if you know this or not, but Ed is from upstate New York, went to school at St. Bonaventure (which, while technically in NY State, is effectively in PA coal country) and started his career at PWC in NY and then moved to Pepsi in Westchester before he ever came down south. I sure wouldn't call him a southerner.

Lootess · Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:35 pm

N717TW wrote:
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

Not sure if you know this or not, but Ed is from upstate New York, went to school at St. Bonaventure (which, while technically in NY State, is effectively in PA coal country) and started his career at PWC in NY and then moved to Pepsi in Westchester before he ever came down south. I sure wouldn't call him a southerner.

Yep, Ed and Glen were instrumental in the 2006 global turnaround that added DKR-JNB to the map, so none of that hearsay made any sense. Plus the NW order was for 788s, and it’s possible they would have given up launch pricing if they changed. Either way they could have used the A359 on JFK-JNB if they wanted to. ATL had been successful since the start anyway.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net