Impressive. I first became aware of this reading a Reuters news story:

(Reuters) -Delta Air Lines said a flight from South Africa to the United States was temporarily diverted from Atlanta to Boston on Sunday for technical reasons.

Flight 201, an Airbus A350, from Johannesburg was initially set to arrive at Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport on Sunday but was instead routed to Boston's Logan International Airport, Delta said.

The diversion "has to do with technical specifications of our A350 aircraft and the payload of this particular flight," the company said in an email.

"This can happen on ultra-long-haul flights when optimal operating conditions can’t be met," it said.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/delta-flight-from-south-africa-to-atlanta-diverted-to-boston-for-technical-specifications/ar-AARe4i7?ocid=uxbndlbing


Not sure how flying the extra distance to Boston was "better" than flying to ATL though.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL201/history/20211127/2105Z/FAOR/KBOS

Take a quick look at this map. BOS is actually much closer to JNB than ATL is. Nearly 600 statute miles.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=JNB-ATL,+JNB-BOS

N62NA wrote:

Not sure how flying the extra distance to Boston was "better" than flying to ATL though.

Hopefully you will not be too inundated with responses, but JNB-ATL is almost 600 statute miles longer than JNB-BOS. Contrary to our fuzzy picture of geography, BOS is the closest major mainland US airport to South Africa.

The plane landed at BOS around 0920, so that landing was an hour later than the scheduled arrival into ATL. They were probably getting into their reserve fuel.

jagraham wrote:

The plane landed at BOS around 0920, so that landing was an hour later than the scheduled arrival into ATL. They were probably getting into their reserve fuel.

Well, it left Johannesburg nearly 2.5 hours late ...

Given that the flight was dispatched from Johannesburg to Boston (and not Atlanta), I'm pretty sure they didn't get into their reserves. One simply doesn't dispatch a flight if you're using your reserves in normal operations.

LCDFlight wrote:

Take a quick look at this map. BOS is actually much closer to JNB than ATL is. Nearly 600 statute miles.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=JNB-ATL,+JNB-BOS

What was interesting to me was the flight time - listed at 19+ hours vs in the 17 hour range for ATL.

Thinking outside the box - what about considering SJU which is 7100ish statue miles??

N62NA wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Take a quick look at this map. BOS is actually much closer to JNB than ATL is. Nearly 600 statute miles.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=JNB-ATL,+JNB-BOS

What was interesting to me was the flight time - listed at 19+ hours vs in the 17 hour range for ATL.

Flight time from Johannesburg to Boston was 15 hours, just under 2 hours on the ground in Boston, 2:20 from Boston to Atlanta. Non-stop Johannesburg-Atlanta flights in the last few weeks have been running anything between 16 and 17 hours in the last few weeks, although mostly around 16. So Boston was at least an hour, but possibly more, shorter. That explains the difference.

adamh8297 wrote:

Thinking outside the box - what about considering SJU which is 7100ish statue miles??

Easier to get a new crew to Boston than San Juan.

Gcmap.com would answer why they chose boston. It's quite a bit more east then even the nyc airports.

The flight went to Boston because it's the closest major Delta Air Lines hub in the USA to Johannesburg. As most others have pointed out, it's closer than Atlanta. Despite being counterintuitive, it's a fairly simple matter. (And there is exactly zero chance that they went into their reserve fuel. If that became likely before going out over the ocean, they'd have turned northeast towards Europe, the Canary Islands, or the Azores. If it happened well into ETOPS territory, they'd have landed at the nearest suitable - St. John's or Halifax, not Boston.)

BOS makes perfect operational sense..... as DL has far more available resources on the ground in BOS to handle a tech stop than SJU.

It is much easier to get a 350 crew to BOS than to SJU.

There seem to be strong westerly winds today. AA DEL-JFK had to divert to YQX presumably for the same reason.

voxkel wrote:

There seem to be strong westerly winds today. AA DEL-JFK had to divert to YQX presumably for the same reason.

+ also because AA does not have Russia overflight rights for JFK-DEL, significantly increasing flight time

https://onemileatatime.com/news/america ... a-flights/

This is why UA did not have to divert, despite flying the very similar routing of DEL-EWR.

Note to self . . . be less ignorant of geography and more familiar with gcmap.com!

It's not like I don't know where JNB is but I too would have thought ATL is closer than BOS. Then again, i don't dispatch nor fly commercial airliners.

Great circle routes can be surprising


Like SFO being closer to HNL than LAX

N62NA wrote:

Impressive. I first became aware of this reading a Reuters news story:

(Reuters) -Delta Air Lines said a flight from South Africa to the United States was temporarily diverted from Atlanta to Boston on Sunday for technical reasons.

Flight 201, an Airbus A350, from Johannesburg was initially set to arrive at Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport on Sunday but was instead routed to Boston's Logan International Airport, Delta said.

The diversion "has to do with technical specifications of our A350 aircraft and the payload of this particular flight," the company said in an email.

"This can happen on ultra-long-haul flights when optimal operating conditions can’t be met," it said.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/delta-flight-from-south-africa-to-atlanta-diverted-to-boston-for-technical-specifications/ar-AARe4i7?ocid=uxbndlbing


Not sure how flying the extra distance to Boston was "better" than flying to ATL though.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL201/history/20211127/2105Z/FAOR/KBOS

JNB-BOS: 6828nm (Shorter distance)
JNBATL: 7333nm

I thought the all flights in or out JNB is banned yesterday. What's going on?

Q

FlyingJhawk wrote:

Note to self . . . be less ignorant of geography and more familiar with gcmap.com!

It's not like I don't know where JNB is but I too would have thought ATL is closer than BOS. Then again, i don't dispatch nor fly commercial airliners.

You may also be surprised to learn that SFO is closer to SYD than LAX is.... that's another one that always seems to shock people.

Q wrote:

I thought the all flights in or out JNB is banned yesterday. What's going on?

They didn't ban flights, they banned non-citizen pax originating in that, and several other, countries.

Q wrote:

I thought the all flights in or out JNB is banned yesterday. What's going on?

Well, that was a rush to judgement. Ban on some passengers, restrictions on others (e.g. quarantine requirements). Some airlines cancelled a handful of flights, but now seemingly back on schedule. DL, UA, BA, VS, AF, KL, LH, QR, ET, SQ and LX flying, some with disrupted schedules. WB, EK and MK remain cancelled.

Hey Delta- missing the 777-200LR yet?

Interestingly enough even despite multiple prior uses of the great circle mapper and knowing cross global routes can be weird I even thought Boston seemed like it would be further than JNB-ATL when I saw the news articles about the diversion. Hopefully the passengers could see that on the IFE flight map or it was explained to them when it happened because I am sure 99% of them thought same as me that they overflew ATL to go to BOS.

Guess we will wait and see if this becomes a regular on JNB-ATL route and DL should not have offloaded the 77L so soon.

pezzy669 wrote:

Guess we will wait and see if this becomes a regular on JNB-ATL route and DL should not have offloaded the 77L so soon.

I don't doubt the economics of dumping the 777s were compelling. Never mind fuel burn: multiple widebody types means a lot of expensive pilots sitting, not flying.

DL is going to need to balance:

- delaying bags and cargo

- seat blocking in Northern winter, released only when forecasts show calm winds

- sticking 300 passengers with a tech stop

Anybody know how many times the 77L needed a tech stop in the ~11 years of JNB-ATL service?

Have there been high winds on JNB-ATL? Every single flight over the few weeks has arrived late in spite of departing on time. Perhaps DL needs to block more time for the return flight?

Jeremy

MIflyer12 wrote:

Anybody know how many times the 77L needed a tech stop in the ~11 years of JNB-ATL service?

Plenty.

MIflyer12 wrote:

pezzy669 wrote:

Guess we will wait and see if this becomes a regular on JNB-ATL route and DL should not have offloaded the 77L so soon.

I don't doubt the economics of dumping the 777s were compelling. Never mind fuel burn: multiple widebody types means a lot of expensive pilots sitting, not flying.

DL is going to need to balance:

- delaying bags and cargo

- seat blocking in Northern winter, released only when forecasts show calm winds

- sticking 300 passengers with a tech stop

Anybody know how many times the 77L needed a tech stop in the ~11 years of JNB-ATL service?

Mgt was asked about the possibility of ordering the -1000. They view it as an unnecessary subfleet that we'd only need for JNB, SYB and possibly BOM. In 2024 we are supposed to take delivery of an even higher gross weight version of the A359 at 283 tonnes which should enable LAX-SYD with no payload restrictions and very few to JNB depending on the time of year. As for this particular flight in question, it was planned to BOS ahead of time to accommodate a higher payload due to the omicron covid variant and people's desire to get out of South Africa; nothing more.

Can you give us any gross figures of the payload of this flight (JNB-BOS)?

tinpusher007 wrote:

As for this particular flight in question, it was planned to BOS ahead of time to accommodate a higher payload due to the omicron covid variant and people's desire to get out of South Africa; nothing more.

That flight does present some exigent circumstances:

- non-citizens/non-permanent residents want to get out before entry restrictions to the U.S. took effect

- Americans want to get out before flight frequencies are cut (which is probable)

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.

What are the difficulties on the fly in rebooking passengers ticketed JNB-ATL-xxx over to JNB-BOS-xxx?

evanb wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Anybody know how many times the 77L needed a tech stop in the ~11 years of JNB-ATL service?

Plenty.

I was hoping for a lot more precision. Five times a winter can be discounted as a rarity. Tech stops 30 times a year is poor planning and failing to meet customer expectations reliably.

MIflyer12 wrote:

What are the difficulties on the fly in rebooking passengers ticketed JNB-ATL-xxx over to JNB-BOS-xxx?

With tech stops passengers and bags usually stay on the aircraft. Rebooking like that now means you have have to unload at least some of the passengers, and then remove cans and start digging through them for their bags and send both to customs and immigration. You are adding a lot of time making it more likely that more ATL connections (that may not have a BOS flight) are missed, crew times out, etc.

MIflyer12 wrote:

evanb wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Anybody know how many times the 77L needed a tech stop in the ~11 years of JNB-ATL service?

Plenty.

I was hoping for a lot more precision. Five times a winter can be discounted as a rarity. Tech stops 30 times a year is poor planning and failing to meet customer expectations reliably.

I followed the flight somewhat closely so can't be as precise as you probably want but can be somewhat more precise; my guess is on the order of 10 times per (Northern Hemisphere) winter. It seemed like the 77L usually went to SJU, though, so I think the diversions flew a bit more under the radar.

While enroute stops on JNB-ATL are well within the realm of possibility… to reiterate… this was a planned tech stop to accommodate full pax in view of what was, at the time, a pretty dynamic situation in JNB without a lot of information. Internally this was decided well in advance of the departure from JNB, so the flight was planned for a BOS arrival. No tapping into reserve fuel, not a contingency, and more pax/bags were accommodated. It also allowed a new crew to be positioned at BOS and the aircraft only spent about 90 minutes on the ground to recrew and fuel. Pretty efficient operation under the circumstances, IMO.

People were showing up at JNB early, trying to get out ahead of what was perceived to be a complete border closure with suspension of flights.

Fortunately, a suspension of flights did not materialize, and things are back to “normal” for JNB-ATL, but non rev travelers are being told to expect the flight to be heavily payload optimized, and as with any standby travel, always have a “Plan B” (as well as C… D… E… and so on).

codc10 wrote:

Fortunately, a suspension of flights did not materialize, and things are back to “normal” for JNB-ATL, but non rev travelers are being told to expect the flight to be heavily payload optimized, and as with any standby travel, always have a “Plan B” (as well as C… D… E… and so on).

It's pretty adventurous to non-rev on this one even during normal times. Back in 2012-2013ish (so back in the 777 days, of course), I had a co-worker who was originally from South Africa. She would go back a couple times a year to visit family and never had any issue non-revving eastbound. But, westbound JNB-ATL was a whole different story. It was payload optimized literally every time she tried to come home and she only got on once. All the other times, she'd have to snag a ZED on Virgin or KLM to get back across the pond.

evanb wrote:

jagraham wrote:

The plane landed at BOS around 0920, so that landing was an hour later than the scheduled arrival into ATL. They were probably getting into their reserve fuel.

Well, it left Johannesburg nearly 2.5 hours late ...

Given that the flight was dispatched from Johannesburg to Boston (and not Atlanta), I'm pretty sure they didn't get into their reserves. One simply doesn't dispatch a flight if you're using your reserves in normal operations.

This is likely the reason for the BOS destination. The duty time of the flight crew. Not a limitation of the plane.

airbazar wrote:

I wonder why they chose to operate this flight from ATL to begin with?

Several factors, including:

• Decent demand from ATL itself to South and southern Africa
• Ability to siphon demand from S.Florida, which has always generated extensive and lucrative O&D to S.Africa (and why SA served both MIA and FLL nonstop, in the past).
• Base for 77Ls
• No direct competition

tinpusher007 wrote:

In 2024 we are supposed to take delivery of an even higher gross weight version of the A359 at 283 tonnes

Been saying that for a while now.
I wonder why Airbus is being coy about making it official?

Also wonder if they will continue to offer the A359ULR configuration, due to its cargo volume limitations, especially seeing as how only one airline has taken it?
(my guess is yes, due to the ACJ350)

Have to remember SAA once was a Delta partner and was running ATL-JNB well before a 77L came on Delta property, and before they deflected to Star Alliance and packed up to IAD. I remember so many SAA passengers connecting to FLL.

Mega hub, monopoly power, and cargo ramifications are three things yield management likes to hear.

Lootess wrote:

Have to remember SAA once was a Delta partner and was running ATL-JNB well before a 77L came on Delta property, and before they deflected to Star Alliance and packed up to IAD. I remember so many SAA passengers connecting to FLL.

Mega hub, monopoly power, and cargo ramifications are three things yield management likes to hear.

FLL? Sounds like AA would make a killing out of MIA and with a partner in JNB, Comair. I know it's been on the a.net wishlist for a long time now.

airbazar wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

airbazar wrote:

I wonder why they chose to operate this flight from ATL to begin with?

Several factors, including:

• Decent demand from ATL itself to South and southern Africa
• Ability to siphon demand from S.Florida, which has always generated extensive and lucrative O&D to S.Africa (and why SA served both MIA and FLL nonstop, in the past).
• Base for 77Ls
• No direct competition

That may very well be the case. Over the years I have read conflicting information about the size of the market in the Southeast. SAA's own actions don't seem to indicate that there is a significant market in the Southeast as they kept moving away from it over the years. Originally SAA was in MIA because they were a AA partner and MIA is the the closest AA hub to CPT. The flight operated JNB-CPT-MIA. The 747 couldn't make it much further. Then when they joined with DL they moved the flight to ATL with a tech stop in FLL. There was never a FLL-JNB. Eventually SAA moved to IAD after joining *A.
JFK just seems to make more sense for this flight IMO but alas, I don't have the data that DL has

This seems to be overlooking Delta's very clear decision to use ATL as a traffic aggregator. Many routes that are ATL-exclusive are reliant upon the hub's power to collect traffic at one point throughout the network with many spokes served that don't see much (or any) other service. Geography or specific route demands are essentially what make any given longhaul destination not be served from ATL if it is served through a single US hub (which makes sense when we see JFK serving the huge demand of New York, while ATL serves the network as a whole on top of the sizeable demand for ATL).

DL definitely could move South Africa service to JFK to improve payload since the route is nearly 500 critical miles shorter. However, in terms of one stop connectivity, it's important to remember that there is a HUGE number of destinations which DL serves from ATL and not JFK. If I'm not mistaken, the current list of US airports with year-round Delta service from ATL but not JFK (excluding EWR/LGA since Delta pax would likely travel to JFK were the flight there) is: Albany, Albuquerque, Alexandria (LA), Allentown, Appleton, Asheville, Augusta (GA), Baton Rouge, Bermuda, Birmingham (AL), Bloomington/Normal, Boise, Brunswick, Cedar Rapids/Iowa City, Charleston (WV), Charlottesville, Chattanooga, Chicago–Midway, Colorado Springs, Columbia (SC), Columbus (GA), Dallas–Love, Dayton, Daytona Beach, Des Moines, Destin/Fort Walton Beach, Dothan, El Paso, Evansville, Fayetteville/Bentonville, Fayetteville (NC), Fort Wayne, Gainesville, Grand Rapids, Green Bay, Greensboro, Greenville/Spartanburg, Gulfport/Biloxi, Harrisburg, Hartford, Hilton Head, Honolulu, Houston–Hobby, Huntsville, Jackson (MS), Jacksonville (NC), Kansas City, Key West, Knoxville, Lafayette (LA), Lexington, Little Rock, Louisville, Madison, Melbourne/Orlando, Memphis, Milwaukee, Mobile, Moline/Quad Cities, Monroe (LA), Montgomery, Myrtle Beach, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Ontario (CA), Orange County, Panama City (FL), Pensacola, Philadelphia, Providence, Roanoke, Rochester (MN), Sacramento, St. Louis, San Jose (CA), Shreveport, Sioux Falls, South Bend, Spokane, Springfield/Branson, Tallahassee, Tri-Cities (TN), Tucson, Tulsa, Valdosta, White Plains, Wichita, Wilmington (NC)

By comparison, I believe the only US point served year-round from JFK without year-round service from ATL is Bangor. While many of the cities listed above likely have small individual demand for travel to/from South Africa, the split DL operation between LGA and JFK means that there are some pretty large metro areas who do not have JFK flights. Collectively, the list of airports above makes an ATL-JNB service more desirable than JFK-JNB to tens of millions of people, many of whom are not in the southeast.

evanb wrote:

adamh8297 wrote:

Thinking outside the box - what about considering SJU which is 7100ish statue miles??

Easier to get a new crew to Boston than San Juan.

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

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.

tjwgrr wrote:

Hey Delta- missing the 777-200LR yet?

They aren't. The 777 has also had to stop westbound for payload numerous times.

777Mech wrote:

tjwgrr wrote:

Hey Delta- missing the 777-200LR yet?

They aren't. The 777 has also had to stop westbound for payload numerous times.

Agreed, if the argument is that Delta are missing the B777-200LR because it can carry more payload than the A350-900, then one might also ask "Hey Delta- missing the B747-400 yet". Nothing like 4 engines for hot and high performance, right?!?!

The reality is that the A350-900 (or the B787-9 that United use between the US and SA) will carry its payload dramatically cheaper than the B777-200LR.

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.

steex wrote:

DL definitely could move South Africa service to JFK to improve payload since the route is nearly 500 critical miles shorter. However, in terms of one stop connectivity, it's important to remember that there is a HUGE number of destinations which DL serves from ATL and not JFK. If I'm not mistaken, the current list of US airports with year-round Delta service from ATL but not JFK (excluding EWR/LGA since Delta pax would likely travel to JFK were the flight there) is: Albany, Albuquerque, Alexandria (LA), Allentown, Appleton, Asheville, Augusta (GA), Baton Rouge, Bermuda, Birmingham (AL), Bloomington/Normal, Boise, Brunswick, Cedar Rapids/Iowa City, Charleston (WV), Charlottesville, Chattanooga, Chicago–Midway, Colorado Springs, Columbia (SC), Columbus (GA), Dallas–Love, Dayton, Daytona Beach, Des Moines, Destin/Fort Walton Beach, Dothan, El Paso, Evansville, Fayetteville/Bentonville, Fayetteville (NC), Fort Wayne, Gainesville, Grand Rapids, Green Bay, Greensboro, Greenville/Spartanburg, Gulfport/Biloxi, Harrisburg, Hartford, Hilton Head, Honolulu, Houston–Hobby, Huntsville, Jackson (MS), Jacksonville (NC), Kansas City, Key West, Knoxville, Lafayette (LA), Lexington, Little Rock, Louisville, Madison, Melbourne/Orlando, Memphis, Milwaukee, Mobile, Moline/Quad Cities, Monroe (LA), Montgomery, Myrtle Beach, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Ontario (CA), Orange County, Panama City (FL), Pensacola, Philadelphia, Providence, Roanoke, Rochester (MN), Sacramento, St. Louis, San Jose (CA), Shreveport, Sioux Falls, South Bend, Spokane, Springfield/Branson, Tallahassee, Tri-Cities (TN), Tucson, Tulsa, Valdosta, White Plains, Wichita, Wilmington (NC). By comparison, I believe the only US point served year-round from JFK without year-round service from ATL is Bangor. While many of the cities listed above likely have small individual demand for travel to/from South Africa, the split DL operation between LGA and JFK means that there are some pretty large metro areas who do not have JFK flights. Collectively, the list of airports above makes an ATL-JNB service more desirable than JFK-JNB to tens of millions of people, many of whom are not in the southeast.

With the disappearance of SA, I have been wondering why DL didn't start JFK-JNB, while keeping ATL-JNB. That would open it up in the country's biggest air market, while allowing it to also connect through the (usually) world's largest hub. Further, the JFK-bound flight could carry the bulk of the cargo, freeing up some weight from the ATL flight to add more passengers - and, hopefully, eliminate the need for a tech stop for either route.

While the market may be depressed for the next few months, it isn't going away and any airline would be wise to jump on it when given the opportunity.

alfa164 wrote:

With the disappearance of SA, I have been wondering why DL didn't start JFK-JNB, while keeping ATL-JNB. That would open it up in the country's biggest air market, while allowing it to also connect through the (usually) world's largest hub. Further, the JFK-bound flight could carry the bulk of the cargo, freeing up some weight from the ATL flight to add more passengers - and, hopefully, eliminate the need for a tech stop for either route.

While the market may be depressed for the next few months, it isn't going away and any airline would be wise to jump on it when given the opportunity.

UA entered EWR-JNB and seasonal EWR-CPT around the same time SAA's long haul operation was collapsing. That might scare them off, but one might argue that there is growth in the market in the longer term. The question would be if DL would prefer to add capacity through a JFK-JNB or rather something to CPT (ATL or JFK).

evanb wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

With the disappearance of SA, I have been wondering why DL didn't start JFK-JNB, while keeping ATL-JNB. That would open it up in the country's biggest air market, while allowing it to also connect through the (usually) world's largest hub. Further, the JFK-bound flight could carry the bulk of the cargo, freeing up some weight from the ATL flight to add more passengers - and, hopefully, eliminate the need for a tech stop for either route.

While the market may be depressed for the next few months, it isn't going away and any airline would be wise to jump on it when given the opportunity.

UA entered EWR-JNB and seasonal EWR-CPT around the same time SAA's long haul operation was collapsing. That might scare them off, but one might argue that there is growth in the market in the longer term. The question would be if DL would prefer to add capacity through a JFK-JNB or rather something to CPT (ATL or JFK).

I'd rather see the JNB flight move to JFK and then have ATL get the CPT flight.