Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
rbavfan
Posts: 3971
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Delta 201 - JNB to BOS 7,900+ Miles Yesterday

Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:20 am

airbazar wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
This route is going to test DL's priority for a reliable operation vs. more revenue from a fuller flight. If current MTOW 359s are truly range-limited even in 'normal' winds perhaps DL would look at relocating the route to JFK 'permanently,' foregoing some 1-stop connectivity.

I wonder why they chose to operate this flight from ATL to begin with? To put it in perspective, even if your final destination is ATL getting there via JFK isn't exactly a significant detour.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=jnb-atl%0D ... =wls&DU=nm
And for connections to anywhere other than Florida there is no meaningful difference. Which leads me to ask this question: Is most of the JNB traffic to/from the Southeast US?


You realize ATL before Covid was above 900 flights a day. JFK was around 240 range. Many more cities served nonstop from ATL to the west coast than from JFK. So there is a meaningful difference.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14428
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Delta 201 - JNB to BOS 7,900+ Miles Yesterday

Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:12 am

airbazar wrote:
they moved the flight to ATL with a tech stop in FLL.

Not a "tech stop" as SA was able to and did sell JNB-CPT-FLL, in addition to ATL as a terminator.

SA's ATL-SID-JNB however, was.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10623
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Delta 201 - JNB to BOS 7,900+ Miles Yesterday

Wed Dec 01, 2021 2:44 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
airbazar wrote:
they moved the flight to ATL with a tech stop in FLL.

Not a "tech stop" as SA was able to and did sell JNB-CPT-FLL, in addition to ATL as a terminator.

SA's ATL-SID-JNB however, was.


It was a tech stop in the sense that the 744 could not fly CPT-ATL non-stop so had to stop somewhere. It did not stop in FLL on the way back and to me that says something about the type of demand that there was in S.Florida for this flight. That and the fact that AA has shown tepid interest at best in flying to SA from MIA despite having a baked-in feeder partner in SA.
 
Lootess
Posts: 750
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 6:15 am

Re: Delta 201 - JNB to BOS 7,900+ Miles Yesterday

Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:06 pm

rbavfan wrote:
airbazar wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
This route is going to test DL's priority for a reliable operation vs. more revenue from a fuller flight. If current MTOW 359s are truly range-limited even in 'normal' winds perhaps DL would look at relocating the route to JFK 'permanently,' foregoing some 1-stop connectivity.

I wonder why they chose to operate this flight from ATL to begin with? To put it in perspective, even if your final destination is ATL getting there via JFK isn't exactly a significant detour.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=jnb-atl%0D ... =wls&DU=nm
And for connections to anywhere other than Florida there is no meaningful difference. Which leads me to ask this question: Is most of the JNB traffic to/from the Southeast US?


You realize ATL before Covid was above 900 flights a day. JFK was around 240 range. Many more cities served nonstop from ATL to the west coast than from JFK. So there is a meaningful difference.


Considering DL started operating ATL-DKR-JNB in 2006 before going non-stop in 2009 with the 77L, it goes to show how successful it's been. They had all the data knowing how many tech stops they had to do at SJU and probably felt it was worth keeping monopoly power, along with demand that wouldn't likely would require every seat.

Sure a virus variant changed all that overnight, but it's not likely to stick or cost Delta all that much in the long-term keeping ATL-JNB non-stop.
 
evanb
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: Delta 201 - JNB to BOS 7,900+ Miles Yesterday

Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:37 pm

airbazar wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
airbazar wrote:
they moved the flight to ATL with a tech stop in FLL.

Not a "tech stop" as SA was able to and did sell JNB-CPT-FLL, in addition to ATL as a terminator.

SA's ATL-SID-JNB however, was.


It was a tech stop in the sense that the 744 could not fly CPT-ATL non-stop so had to stop somewhere. It did not stop in FLL on the way back and to me that says something about the type of demand that there was in S.Florida for this flight. That and the fact that AA has shown tepid interest at best in flying to SA from MIA despite having a baked-in feeder partner in SA.


Having had the experience of actually working on the commercial and operational planning, and network strategy of SA flights to the US in the 90s and early 2000s, I'd say this is mostly wrong, but with some elements of truth. Basically, you cannot put these decision in binary boxes of tech-stops, etc. Here's some context (apologies for the longish post):

When SA restarted and grew US operations in the 90s they initially started with JNB-JFK-JNB. They could fly JNB-JFK non-stop with the B744, first of which they received in 1991. However, due to hot and high challenges in JNB, they would have to take a significant penalty given that the B744 would not be able to get out at MTOW. Thus, they used SID as a tech-stop. It was well placed on the GC route and it has some historical significance. In the early 90s, tech-stops were far more common and accepted and it didn't create a significant competitive disadvantage. They did have 5th freedom right for SID, but the local traffic between JNB-SID-JNB and SID-JFK-SID was tiny. The return route from JFK went non-stop from 6 days per week and stoped at SID once a week for local traffic. This is indicative that this was as close to a true tech-stop as one could imagine, even though they had 5th freedom rights. As time moved on, SAA got more creating looking for 5th freedoms through bigger markets and operated JNB-LOS-JFK-LOS-JNB for a while. It was particularly lucrative, until the Nigerians canned it. This became a feature of SA's US routes for the future and SA operates through DKR and ACC as well in various route configurations. This combined tech-stops with commercial opportunities and advantages.

When they started MIA as a second US light, the strategy was to use MIA as the transit hub. While passengers could transit on AA at JFK, the connecting options were simply not as significant as MIA. There was certainly some O&D traffic from MIA, but that was never the purpose of off SA's strategy. JNB-MIA is a very similar distance to JNB-JFK (less than 100nm more), but the problem is that there wasn't a place to tech-stop anywhere near the GC route. SID adds nearly 200nm, and with more southerly flight paths being preferable at times, it could end up adding up to 500nm from the optimal track on a given day. The other options were WDH, WLB or CPT (and even LAD was considered). WDH and WVB would be the shortest, but not add significant value in terms of local traffic. WDH would also present some hot and hight issues (still can't get out of WDH near MTOW given that it's only marginally lower altitude than JNB and a lot hotter at times). So you might end up still taking a payload hit at WDH thus negating the purpose of the stop, however, WVB is sea level and plenty of runway, but even less local traffic. From a purely operational perspective, WLB would

CPT offered a different option as a "tech-stop". A much bigger diversion from the GC route, but had the advantage of picking up significant local traffic and not having to connect them to JNB in the first place. The critical part is that the return flight MIA-JNB went non-stop, not stoping at CPT. So CPT was a tech-stop, albeit one that was chosen for commercial rather than strictly operational reasons.

When SAA switched partnership from AA to DL, and thus MIA to ATL, the original intent was to keep the same configuration and strategy. Given that CPT was already a tech-stop, adding a second tech-stop at FLL seems unreasonable from an operational perspective (could go with the one-stop at WLB). It had a commercial benefit too in terms of local traffic, although it's arguable if that that was ultimately successful. Additionally, the flight could have easily been dispatched CPT-ATL non-stop since the B744 can get out of CPT at MTOW regularly, and it's not clear that you'd have had to leave too much behind to carry the fuel. If it was purely about operational challenges, the flight would likely have been planned as JNB-WLB-ATL, the commercial and strategic interests had other ideas. Tech-stops are not always just about the operational planning, but commercial benefit too. This all became moot when the A346 arrived two years after SAA switched MIA for ATL.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10623
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Delta 201 - JNB to BOS 7,900+ Miles Yesterday

Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:08 pm

evanb wrote:
Having had the experience of actually working on the commercial and operational planning, and network strategy of SA flights to the US in the 90s and early 2000s, I'd say this is mostly wrong, but with some elements of truth. Basically, you cannot put these decision in binary boxes of tech-stops, etc. Here's some context (apologies for the longish post):


It wasn't long at all. And it was a great read. Always fun to read about the history of airline operations from someone on the inside.
And yes, it goes without saying that when one makes a comment like "airplane can't make it from A to B" it implies commercial viability.
 
LDRA
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:01 am

Re: Delta 201 - JNB to BOS 7,900+ Miles Yesterday

Mon Dec 06, 2021 12:57 am

evanb wrote:
airbazar wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Not a "tech stop" as SA was able to and did sell JNB-CPT-FLL, in addition to ATL as a terminator.

SA's ATL-SID-JNB however, was.


It was a tech stop in the sense that the 744 could not fly CPT-ATL non-stop so had to stop somewhere. It did not stop in FLL on the way back and to me that says something about the type of demand that there was in S.Florida for this flight. That and the fact that AA has shown tepid interest at best in flying to SA from MIA despite having a baked-in feeder partner in SA.


Having had the experience of actually working on the commercial and operational planning, and network strategy of SA flights to the US in the 90s and early 2000s, I'd say this is mostly wrong, but with some elements of truth. Basically, you cannot put these decision in binary boxes of tech-stops, etc. Here's some context (apologies for the longish post):

When SA restarted and grew US operations in the 90s they initially started with JNB-JFK-JNB. They could fly JNB-JFK non-stop with the B744, first of which they received in 1991. However, due to hot and high challenges in JNB, they would have to take a significant penalty given that the B744 would not be able to get out at MTOW. Thus, they used SID as a tech-stop. It was well placed on the GC route and it has some historical significance. In the early 90s, tech-stops were far more common and accepted and it didn't create a significant competitive disadvantage. They did have 5th freedom right for SID, but the local traffic between JNB-SID-JNB and SID-JFK-SID was tiny. The return route from JFK went non-stop from 6 days per week and stoped at SID once a week for local traffic. This is indicative that this was as close to a true tech-stop as one could imagine, even though they had 5th freedom rights. As time moved on, SAA got more creating looking for 5th freedoms through bigger markets and operated JNB-LOS-JFK-LOS-JNB for a while. It was particularly lucrative, until the Nigerians canned it. This became a feature of SA's US routes for the future and SA operates through DKR and ACC as well in various route configurations. This combined tech-stops with commercial opportunities and advantages.

When they started MIA as a second US light, the strategy was to use MIA as the transit hub. While passengers could transit on AA at JFK, the connecting options were simply not as significant as MIA. There was certainly some O&D traffic from MIA, but that was never the purpose of off SA's strategy. JNB-MIA is a very similar distance to JNB-JFK (less than 100nm more), but the problem is that there wasn't a place to tech-stop anywhere near the GC route. SID adds nearly 200nm, and with more southerly flight paths being preferable at times, it could end up adding up to 500nm from the optimal track on a given day. The other options were WDH, WLB or CPT (and even LAD was considered). WDH and WVB would be the shortest, but not add significant value in terms of local traffic. WDH would also present some hot and hight issues (still can't get out of WDH near MTOW given that it's only marginally lower altitude than JNB and a lot hotter at times). So you might end up still taking a payload hit at WDH thus negating the purpose of the stop, however, WVB is sea level and plenty of runway, but even less local traffic. From a purely operational perspective, WLB would

CPT offered a different option as a "tech-stop". A much bigger diversion from the GC route, but had the advantage of picking up significant local traffic and not having to connect them to JNB in the first place. The critical part is that the return flight MIA-JNB went non-stop, not stoping at CPT. So CPT was a tech-stop, albeit one that was chosen for commercial rather than strictly operational reasons.

When SAA switched partnership from AA to DL, and thus MIA to ATL, the original intent was to keep the same configuration and strategy. Given that CPT was already a tech-stop, adding a second tech-stop at FLL seems unreasonable from an operational perspective (could go with the one-stop at WLB). It had a commercial benefit too in terms of local traffic, although it's arguable if that that was ultimately successful. Additionally, the flight could have easily been dispatched CPT-ATL non-stop since the B744 can get out of CPT at MTOW regularly, and it's not clear that you'd have had to leave too much behind to carry the fuel. If it was purely about operational challenges, the flight would likely have been planned as JNB-WLB-ATL, the commercial and strategic interests had other ideas. Tech-stops are not always just about the operational planning, but commercial benefit too. This all became moot when the A346 arrived two years after SAA switched MIA for ATL.


Great post!
 
TrafficCop
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2018 8:00 pm

Re: Delta 201 - JNB to BOS 7,900+ Miles Yesterday

Mon Dec 06, 2021 1:56 am

evanb wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
While I think Boston makes more sense I don’t think it’s difficult at all for delta to get a crew to San Juan


Not really. A350 crew bases are DTW, ATL and LAX, but ATL and LAX are recent additions (target date for opening was end of 2020, but I suspect that that was slower than originally expected due to COVID). ATL and LAX were both B777 crew bases. I agree that it was pretty easy getting B777 crew from ATL to SJU. For example, DL 1861 (6:30 pm 10:56 pm) would get crew there with enough time. However, given that the A350 base in ATL is relatively new they maybe didn't have slack there and needed to get crew from DTW. There isn't a non-stop DTW-SJU and they would have had to connect crew through ATL. Would have been an unnecessarily long trip. Much easier to take a non-stop DTW-BOS (DL have several non-stops). Additionally, DL have much greater ground handling capacity and gate access at BOS compared to SJU, which ultimately make BOS cheaper. Additionally, they also could have shifted some connecting from ATL to BOS, which they couldn't do at SJU. This latter point would reduce inconvenience for some passengers who would inevitably miss connections in ATL. It seems like a creative solution by DL.


It is not as easy to move connections as you think. To let pax off in Boston means trying to pull their baggage also.This would take more time and not make these 1 hr stops possible. You might get a few pax without checked bags but not many. The whole gas and gos have put the flights in 19 hr + range. Start moving pax and bags and it would eally get messy.

Just think its interesting the two different philospohies. Seems to be working just fine for both carriers.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1214
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Delta 201 - JNB to BOS 7,900+ Miles Yesterday

Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:01 am

tjwgrr wrote:
Hey Delta- missing the 777-200LR yet?



Although I believed that the 77L had a place in DLs fleet, it's clear that DL would rather have the 359 fuel savings on the longhaul routes and suffer a bit on the (currently) 3 ULH routes that generate these headlines. Rather than keep 10 77Ls and their separate pilot group for 3 routes.

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