Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
FromCDGtoSYD wrote:Makes sense, triangle routes will be less and less attractive as things go back to normal, especially if competitors go for non-stop. I wonder what the numbers look like for the A350 then, its really a testament to the aircraft's capabilities if it can perform duties that were once exclusive to the LR. With UA biting into DL's lunch, I'd like them to expand more in the continent. Maybe add ATL-CPT or JFK-JNB.
alfa164 wrote:FromCDGtoSYD wrote:Makes sense, triangle routes will be less and less attractive as things go back to normal, especially if competitors go for non-stop. I wonder what the numbers look like for the A350 then, its really a testament to the aircraft's capabilities if it can perform duties that were once exclusive to the LR. With UA biting into DL's lunch, I'd like them to expand more in the continent. Maybe add ATL-CPT or JFK-JNB.
I would think JFK-JNB would be a good option - particularly with SA struggling, if not on the ropes already.
flight152 wrote:alfa164 wrote:FromCDGtoSYD wrote:Makes sense, triangle routes will be less and less attractive as things go back to normal, especially if competitors go for non-stop. I wonder what the numbers look like for the A350 then, its really a testament to the aircraft's capabilities if it can perform duties that were once exclusive to the LR. With UA biting into DL's lunch, I'd like them to expand more in the continent. Maybe add ATL-CPT or JFK-JNB.
I would think JFK-JNB would be a good option - particularly with SA struggling, if not on the ropes already.
UA is already flying EWR-JNB.
alfa164 wrote:flight152 wrote:alfa164 wrote:
I would think JFK-JNB would be a good option - particularly with SA struggling, if not on the ropes already.
UA is already flying EWR-JNB.
I think we all know that already.
TW870 wrote:Do the A350s that SQ uses on the US-SIN routes have an extra fuel tank, or is it just a performance bump for increased gross weight? I am curious as to whether Delta can buy a performance bump from Airbus and Rolls-Royce to make the numbers work better on the westbound leg.
alfa164 wrote:FromCDGtoSYD wrote:Makes sense, triangle routes will be less and less attractive as things go back to normal, especially if competitors go for non-stop. I wonder what the numbers look like for the A350 then, its really a testament to the aircraft's capabilities if it can perform duties that were once exclusive to the LR. With UA biting into DL's lunch, I'd like them to expand more in the continent. Maybe add ATL-CPT or JFK-JNB.
I would think JFK-JNB would be a good option - particularly with SA struggling, if not on the ropes already.
flight152 wrote:alfa164 wrote:flight152 wrote:UA is already flying EWR-JNB.
I think we all know that already.
If you already knew that, then it would be pretty obvious ATL would be a better option for that flight, considering the massive feed and lack of competition.
FromCDGtoSYD wrote:With UA biting into DL's lunch, I'd like them to expand more in the continent. Maybe add ATL-CPT or JFK-JNB.
JerseyFlyer wrote:DL had earlier announced a triangular schedule Atlanta / Johannesburg / Cape Town / Atlanta. This prompted a debate on this forum (thread now locked) as to whether the "real" reason for adding Cape Town was that the A350 could not make JNB to ATL without unacceptable weight penalties.
FromCDGtoSYD wrote:Makes sense, triangle routes will be less and less attractive as things go back to normal, especially if competitors go for non-stop.
I wonder what the numbers look like for the A350 then, its really a testament to the aircraft's capabilities if it can perform duties that were once exclusive to the LR.
With UA biting into DL's lunch, I'd like them to expand more in the continent. Maybe add ATL-CPT or JFK-JNB.
rutankrd wrote:FromCDGtoSYD wrote:Makes sense, triangle routes will be less and less attractive as things go back to normal, especially if competitors go for non-stop.
I wonder what the numbers look like for the A350 then, its really a testament to the aircraft's capabilities if it can perform duties that were once exclusive to the LR.
With UA biting into DL's lunch, I'd like them to expand more in the continent. Maybe add ATL-CPT or JFK-JNB.
Prey tell what competitors?
South African are bankrupt and United operate into Newark Competition ???..
alfa164 wrote:I would think JFK-JNB would be a good option - particularly with SA struggling, if not on the ropes already.
LAX772LR wrote:Um, did anyone bother to actually check.... because the CPT stop is very much still there.
They aren't however selling CPT as a destination via JNB (but via AMS and LHR), so they don't mention it in this P.R.
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?
LAX772LR wrote: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?
When DL first took delivery of their A359s, they were at 268tonne MTOW.
But today, most ships have been retroactively upgraded to 275tonne MTOW (the same weight that SQ used to launch SIN-SFO, though with a liter config), and ships N512DN and above have 280tonne MTOWs (same as offered by the SQ A359ULRs, though without fuel or cargo modifications).
Cubsrule wrote:LAX772LR wrote: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?
When DL first took delivery of their A359s, they were at 268tonne MTOW.
But today, most ships have been retroactively upgraded to 275tonne MTOW (the same weight that SQ used to launch SIN-SFO, though with a liter config), and ships N512DN and above have 280tonne MTOWs (same as offered by the SQ A359ULRs, though without fuel or cargo modifications).
Those are just paper upgrades, though, right? If so, they help range but not so much runway performance (indeed, if you add 5 tonnes with no changes, that will HARM runway performance).
panamair wrote:It’s “schedule change Saturday” at Delta; they have zeroed out all inventory for DL201 for now while they load the new revised flight schedule. Should be available for booking by tomorrow.
TW870 wrote:Do the A350s that SQ uses on the US-SIN routes have an extra fuel tank, or is it just a performance bump for increased gross weight? I am curious as to whether Delta can buy a performance bump from Airbus and Rolls-Royce to make the numbers work better on the westbound leg.
FromCDGtoSYD wrote:Makes sense, triangle routes will be less and less attractive as things go back to normal, especially if competitors go for non-stop.
I wonder what the numbers look like for the A350 then, its really a testament to the aircraft's capabilities if it can perform duties that were once exclusive to the LR.
With UA biting into DL's lunch, I'd like them to expand more in the continent. Maybe add ATL-CPT or JFK-JNB.
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
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 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.
9252fly 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 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.
Will UA have a greater cargo lift capability out of CPT in the Southern Hemisphere summer, considering the airport is almost at sea level. I was thinking they could truck cargo from JNB to CPT?
Polot wrote:LAX772LR wrote:Polot wrote:Except the flight times given (10:55pm departure, 9:15am arrival next day, all times locals) match up with a nonstop flight. For comparison the old nonstop on the 77L left at 7:55p and arrived at 6:45 am.
And the times are directly from DL PR.
Except as of little more than an hour ago, DL's website was still showing DL201 with a stopover.
Though it's interesting to note: you can't actually book it on their site (nor on Google flights) right now.
DL200 yes, but the return is always via CDG/AMS/LHR.
DL201 is nowhere to be seen. Try it, if you're reading this within the next few minutes.
Interesting.
DL’s reservation system has yet to be updated with the new nonstop return.
panamair wrote:The PR shows the following schedule now for JNB-ATL:
Dep JNB 1055pm Arr ATL 915am+1
The previous schedule with the CPT stop was:
Dep JNB 530pm Arr ATL 715am+1
The above flight schedule would indicate that the CPT stop has been eliminated and that JNB-ATL is planned to be nonstop. Also the Flight schedules on delta.com now show DL201 JNB-ATL in August to be nonstop with a 16h20m flight time
FLALEFTY wrote:Bummer...I would have loved to been able to nip up to ATL and have single-plane service from ATL to CPT and back. I understand that Cape Town is a cool place to visit.
jayunited wrote:FromCDGtoSYD wrote:Makes sense, triangle routes will be less and less attractive as things go back to normal, especially if competitors go for non-stop.
I wonder what the numbers look like for the A350 then, its really a testament to the aircraft's capabilities if it can perform duties that were once exclusive to the LR.
With UA biting into DL's lunch, I'd like them to expand more in the continent. Maybe add ATL-CPT or JFK-JNB.
United is not biting into Delta's lunch United's flight EWR-JNB replaces South African Airways flight.
rutankrd wrote:FromCDGtoSYD wrote:Makes sense, triangle routes will be less and less attractive as things go back to normal, especially if competitors go for non-stop.
I wonder what the numbers look like for the A350 then, its really a testament to the aircraft's capabilities if it can perform duties that were once exclusive to the LR.
With UA biting into DL's lunch, I'd like them to expand more in the continent. Maybe add ATL-CPT or JFK-JNB.
Prey tell what competitors?
South African are bankrupt and United operate into Newark Competition ???..
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.
Even the 772LRs faced that problem, which is why DL/Boeing/Goodyear worked together to get a custom build certified for high-altitude ops like JNB.
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.
Detroit313 wrote:It was delusional to think that this would be successful in the first place. Why would anyone choose to make a stop while they can fly non stop to the US from both cities on United for example.
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.
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.
Detroit313 wrote:It was delusional to think that this would be successful in the first place. Why would anyone choose to make a stop while they can fly non stop to the US from both cities on United for example.
CriticalPoint wrote:On a hot day in DEN Iv been well below MTOW and right on Max tire speed.
gloom wrote:CriticalPoint wrote:On a hot day in DEN Iv been well below MTOW and right on Max tire speed.
A350 would be on (standard) tire limit somewhere around 271t, going at ISA+15/8000ft altitude elevation. Tire limit is then hit, at around 4700m takeoff run.
JNB rwy is 4400m long, 5700ft altitude, ISA+15 usually at time of departure.
That sort of conditions is very rare at JNB. You will always run off the distance first, so the plane is TOW limited, not tire speed limited.
Cheers,
Adam
CriticalPoint wrote:Not saying you are wrong but I have to ask are you using Ground speed?
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 ...
jayunited wrote:FromCDGtoSYD wrote:Makes sense, triangle routes will be less and less attractive as things go back to normal, especially if competitors go for non-stop.
I wonder what the numbers look like for the A350 then, its really a testament to the aircraft's capabilities if it can perform duties that were once exclusive to the LR.
With UA biting into DL's lunch, I'd like them to expand more in the continent. Maybe add ATL-CPT or JFK-JNB.
United is not biting into Delta's lunch United's flight EWR-JNB replaces South African Airways flight.