Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14602
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Tue Dec 07, 2021 8:07 pm

airbazar wrote:
What about the A346?

Nope. It put most of its payload capability into getting its own bulk out of there; though being a quad helped.

To give you an idea of the relative inefficiency: at MTOW (which neither aircraft could realistically reach out of JNB) the A346 was 100tonnes heavier than the A359s offering similar capacity today! :eek: (I'm fairly certain that SA's were not the -HGW version, and thus mostly limited to ~365tonnes, but not 100% sure.)

SA briefly opped the A346 on the eastbound ATL-JNB nonstop, but never westbound. They eventually decided to stop both ways, to maximize payload, and continued doing so after the flight was moved to the shorter IAD route.
 
evanb
Posts: 1080
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Tue Dec 07, 2021 9:10 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Nope. It put most of its payload capability into getting its own bulk out of there; though being a quad helped.

To give you an idea of the relative inefficiency: at MTOW (which neither aircraft could realistically reach out of JNB) the A346 was 100tonnes heavier than the A359s offering similar capacity today! :eek: (I'm fairly certain that SA's were not the -HGW version, and thus mostly limited to ~365tonnes, but not 100% sure.)


Correct, although they were rated to 368t, not the HGW of 380t. That said, they were normally limited to 360t to 365t, although that even drops to 350t when it got warm.
 
johns624
Posts: 5166
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Tue Dec 07, 2021 9:47 pm

travaz wrote:
I find it rather humorous that people on ULH complain when the flight has to stop for fuel. Would you rather the alternative? It's like the idiot on my flight (PHX BDL Via ORD) We get to ORD and everything is shut down because of extreme icing at ORD and eastward. He is screaming at a gate agent because his flight got cancelled. Death Wish I guess.
Like my brother was fond of saying, "the only thing worse than being on the ground and wishing you were at FL350 is being at FL350 and wishing you were on the ground".
 
johns624
Posts: 5166
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Tue Dec 07, 2021 9:48 pm

Why do so many think an airline should get a special plane for only one route?
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14602
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:21 pm

johns624 wrote:
Why do so many think an airline should get a special plane for only one route?

Especially when no plane actually exists, that'd operate said route in the perfect manner that some people here imagine to be necessary.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10736
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:25 pm

johns624 wrote:
Why do so many think an airline should get a special plane for only one route?

I don't think anyone is out right saying they should. I think most of us are just fantasizing about possibilities :)
Why you ask? Maybe because that's exactly what they did with their 77L fleet? And it's not 1 route, it's 3 routes: JNB, SYD, DEL.
Getting an A350-1000 (or A340), is no more a "special plane" in their current fleet than operating 77L's in their previous fleet.
But the reality is that there's no question that operating the A359 with blocked seats is the way to go.
 
evanb
Posts: 1080
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:31 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Why do so many think an airline should get a special plane for only one route?

Especially when no plane actually exists, that'd operate said route in the perfect manner that some people here imagine to be necessary.


Totally. If only people realised that getting a heavy out of JNB at 5700 AMSL and ISA +10C at MTOW would require it to be so over engineered for sea level and ISA operations that it would be so uneconomical it won't be worth it. Even the beast of the A340-500, as over engineered as it was, could still get nowhere near MTOW at JNB.

What we should be appreciating here is just how much the A350 and B787 have closed the performance gap between quads and twins! And that what performance gap still remains has been more than made up by the improving economics. This certainly wasn't the case two decades ago.
 
johns624
Posts: 5166
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:41 pm

airbazar wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Why do so many think an airline should get a special plane for only one route?

I don't think anyone is out right saying they should. I think most of us are just fantasizing about possibilities :)
Why you ask? Maybe because that's exactly what they did with their 77L fleet? And it's not 1 route, it's 3 routes: JNB, SYD, DEL.
Getting an A350-1000 (or A340), is no more a "special plane" in their current fleet than operating 77L's in their previous fleet.
But the reality is that there's no question that operating the A359 with blocked seats is the way to go.
Yes, it is. It's a big difference. They got the LR to handle routes that the ER didn't have the range for. The 359 can handle any route, it just can't do it at full capacity. There's a big difference between a plane not being able to do a route and not being able to do it at full capacity. Is DL even flying to DEL now?
 
wjcandee
Posts: 11465
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:44 pm

johns624 wrote:
Like my brother was fond of saying, "the only thing worse than being on the ground and wishing you were at FL350 is being at FL350 and wishing you were on the ground".


I like to say that if the pilots don't want to go, neither do I. If they want to wait, I'm going to wait without complaint.
 
johns624
Posts: 5166
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:59 pm

Are we going to have a sticky thread like this one about Project Sunrise, if it ever comes to fruition?
 
evanb
Posts: 1080
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:09 pm

johns624 wrote:
Are we going to have a sticky thread like this one about Project Sunrise, if it ever comes to fruition?


Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane are all at sea level, but I'm sure that won't stop us ...
 
DN4CAAD
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2021 12:55 pm

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:10 pm

johns624 wrote:
Are we going to have a sticky thread like this one about Project Sunrise, if it ever comes to fruition?


“QF1 diverted to EDDF, is Alan Joyce a big stinky fraud who couldn’t see this would happen. Unlike me, a nice smelling, honest forum user.”
 
RobertS975
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 2:17 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:40 pm

I think that many non-pilots here don't realize that many airplanes, probably most airplanes, cannot be filled to the max fuel capacity AND the max payload capacity. Tradeoffs have been made since airplanes were invented!
 
alfa164
Posts: 4088
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:46 pm

airbazar wrote:
Why you ask? Maybe because that's exactly what they did with their 77L fleet? And it's not 1 route, it's 3 routes: JNB, SYD, DEL.
Getting an A350-1000 (or A340), is no more a "special plane" in their current fleet than operating 77L's in their previous fleet.


Delta never flew to DEL. You probably have that confused with BOM.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14602
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Wed Dec 08, 2021 12:28 am

airbazar wrote:
Maybe because that's exactly what they did with their 77L fleet? And it's not 1 route, it's 3 routes: JNB, SYD, DEL.
Getting an A350-1000 (or A340), is no more a "special plane" in their current fleet than operating 77L's in their previous fleet.

Remind us when DL flew to DEL, again.... ;)

But anyway: the -LRs were more or less designated for ATL-JNB/BOM/PVG, JFK-BOM, and LAX-SYD, yes; but you're working back from your conclusion. At the time of purchase, Boeing had shifted the focus of its 777 sales away from the 77E/773 and to the 77L/77W, and were quite aggressive in peddling the latter over the former.

There's also the issue of GE providing massive DIP financing for DL upon its bankruptcy exit, which some contend led it away from RR on its 777 purchases; though I do find the evidence for that to be somewhat dubious.

What isn't in doubt, is that with the exception of BOM, those weren't the routes that were even at the forefront following the acquisition: if you'll go back to nearly all public releases, DL's focus at the time was bolstering the Middle East with nonstops. Obviously didn't work out that way (for long), but still.
 
HVNandrew
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:05 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Wed Dec 08, 2021 12:47 am

JohanTally wrote:
bchandl wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

Again, the fact that they are having operational issues this week - in the winter and with Omicron anxiety on top - really is not probative of whether the 359 is, in general, an appropriate aircraft for the route.


Blaming Omicron makes absolutely no sense to me. I get the winds argument, although we're blaming winter winds and most of this flight's duration takes place in the hemisphere where it's currently late spring, about to be summer.........

Omicron though... We're saying the A359 can't handle the demands of the route because of the variant, which is presumably causing people to want to leave SA in higher demand meaning a full flight. So if the aircraft is incapable of carrying it's full compliment of pax the full distance of the route, that by definition would make it the wrong aircraft for the mission. What about that am I missing?

I think DL knew that the 359 is an imperfect aircraft for the route but the cost savings should make up for ultimately blocking seats during normal operations. Originally the flight had a stopover in CPT on the way home but the South African Government forced DL to eliminate the stop. If it's true that a higher MTOW 359 is in the works for DL that should come close to being sufficient for full flights to operate with infrequent fuel diversions.

Why did South Africa not allow the CPT stop? I doubt DL was looking for any local traffic rights on JNB-CPT so I don't see why a ATL-JNB-CPT-ATL routing would be especially controversial.
 
Metopower
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:00 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Wed Dec 08, 2021 1:12 am

As a retired Dal 777 capt. I flew this route many times. Never stopped for fuel. Headwinds were never a problem . The INTZ was however as were the temperatures for takeoff in the summertime in JNB . The stop in SJC was probably a coordinated crew change. Easy with preplanning to get a crew to SJC with advanced notice and customs is available there. I have done it before. B777LR is a superior airplane except for operating cost. JMHO
 
evanb
Posts: 1080
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Wed Dec 08, 2021 1:31 am

Metopower wrote:
As a retired Dal 777 capt. I flew this route many times. Never stopped for fuel. Headwinds were never a problem . The INTZ was however as were the temperatures for takeoff in the summertime in JNB . The stop in SJC was probably a coordinated crew change. Easy with preplanning to get a crew to SJC with advanced notice and customs is available there. I have done it before. B777LR is a superior airplane except for operating cost. JMHO


Thanks for this. Also, thanks for highlighting the temperature issue. As I've said several times, this might seem innocuous, but when you're already at 5700ft AMSL, a few degrees makes a big difference when you're trying to carry fuel for 15-16 hours. JNB does get nice and warm in the summer time, and certainly enough to influence performance.
 
a320fan
Posts: 1060
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:04 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Wed Dec 08, 2021 8:55 am

airbazar wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Why do so many think an airline should get a special plane for only one route?

I don't think anyone is out right saying they should. I think most of us are just fantasizing about possibilities :)
Why you ask? Maybe because that's exactly what they did with their 77L fleet? And it's not 1 route, it's 3 routes: JNB, SYD, DEL.
Getting an A350-1000 (or A340), is no more a "special plane" in their current fleet than operating 77L's in their previous fleet.
But the reality is that there's no question that operating the A359 with blocked seats is the way to go.

LAX to SYD doesn’t need any extra special equipment. Standard A350 is fine. So is a 77E, don’t need the LR.
 
ABMUC
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2021 10:21 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Wed Dec 08, 2021 9:23 am

airbazar wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Why do so many think an airline should get a special plane for only one route?

I don't think anyone is out right saying they should. I think most of us are just fantasizing about possibilities :)
Why you ask? Maybe because that's exactly what they did with their 77L fleet? And it's not 1 route, it's 3 routes: JNB, SYD, DEL.
Getting an A350-1000 (or A340), is no more a "special plane" in their current fleet than operating 77L's in their previous fleet.
But the reality is that there's no question that operating the A359 with blocked seats is the way to go.


Your statement is incorrect. It is one route: JNB. There are no problems on the SYD route, even the standard 359 has no problems. It is just a myth often repeated on here. FYI DL never flew to DEL.
 
FlyingViking
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:16 am

Delta and A330-800?

Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:03 am

Another day another diversion of DL201 it seems like. Since Delta has the 330-900 would the 330-800 be a relatively easy add to the fleet and would it have better performance in JHB then the A350?
 
Billly2903
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2021 3:44 pm

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:18 am

I think it is possible. B767 is getting older so it needs a replacement. If Boeing doesn't launch B797 soon, then I think A330-800 would the best choice ( along with A321XLR ofc).
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14602
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:21 am

FlyingViking wrote:
Another day another diversion of DL201 it seems like. Since Delta has the 330-900 would the 330-800 be a relatively easy add to the fleet and would it have better performance in JHB then the A350?

No, and it'd add atrocious per-seat costs to the equation as well.


Billly2903 wrote:
then I think A330-800 would the best choice

Doubt they'd see it the same way.

The reason almost no airline wants the A338 is because the trip cost is so close to the A339's. Considering that the latter now has the same range as a 744, that leaves virtually no advantage to operating the A338; as there's little penalty for leaving the A339's additional seats empty, while those extra seats are there to sell if you wish to.

It's the same problem the A332 faced once the A333 gained capability.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7998
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:58 am

If anything, Delta will probably add aux tanks or take on a small ULR fleet like they had the 77Ls.

Is the new issue still a tire speed thing or is it just bad winds this time of year causing the recent diversions?
 
DN4CAAD
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2021 12:55 pm

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:08 am

TWA772LR wrote:
If anything, Delta will probably add aux tanks or take on a small ULR fleet like they had the 77Ls.

Is the new issue still a tire speed thing or is it just bad winds this time of year causing the recent diversions?


How does a faster TO roll (regarding tire issue) affect the possibility of diversion thousands of miles later?
 
moyangmm
Posts: 235
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:09 am

Seems like the aircraft used on DL201 is incapable of doing a 17+ hr flight... They should have used 787 for this mission, but DL doesn't have any. UA's JNB-EWR is 1 hour shorter and hasn't had any diversions.
Last edited by moyangmm on Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 3029
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:14 am

moyangmm wrote:
Seems like the aircraft used on DL201 is incapable of doing a 17+ hr flight... They should have used 787-9/10 for this mission, but DL doesn't have any.


A 787-10 on a 17 hour flight? Laughable tripe.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 235
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:17 am

MrHMSH wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
Seems like the aircraft used on DL201 is incapable of doing a 17+ hr flight... They should have used 787-9/10 for this mission, but DL doesn't have any.


A 787-10 on a 17 hour flight? Laughable tripe.


With reduced payload of course, like DL did with their 350....
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 3029
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:23 am

moyangmm wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
Seems like the aircraft used on DL201 is incapable of doing a 17+ hr flight... They should have used 787-9/10 for this mission, but DL doesn't have any.


A 787-10 on a 17 hour flight? Laughable tripe.


With reduced payload of course, like DL did with their 350....


IIRC a UA insider said the 78X had 100 blocked seats on IAD-PEK, a flight 1400nm shorter, which if true would mean its payload capability on JNB-ATL would be so severely limited the route would be completely unviable.

Please refer back to the TechOps thread you were involved in so we can deal with facts, not fantasy.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 235
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:35 am

MrHMSH wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:

A 787-10 on a 17 hour flight? Laughable tripe.


With reduced payload of course, like DL did with their 350....


IIRC a UA insider said the 78X had 100 blocked seats on IAD-PEK, a flight 1400nm shorter, which if true would mean its payload capability on JNB-ATL would be so severely limited the route would be completely unviable.

Please refer back to the TechOps thread you were involved in so we can deal with facts, not fantasy.


Thanks for the information. So ok, the payload penalty for 787-10 is too much. Maybe DL should have used 787-9 for JNB-ATL then, like UA does. Their 787 is perfect for these super long routes. UA JNB-EWR has never diverted once.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 3029
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:46 am

moyangmm wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
moyangmm wrote:

With reduced payload of course, like DL did with their 350....


IIRC a UA insider said the 78X had 100 blocked seats on IAD-PEK, a flight 1400nm shorter, which if true would mean its payload capability on JNB-ATL would be so severely limited the route would be completely unviable.

Please refer back to the TechOps thread you were involved in so we can deal with facts, not fantasy.


Thanks for the information. So ok, the payload penalty for 787-10 is too much. Maybe DL should have used 787-9 for JNB-ATL then, like UA does. Their 787 is perfect for these super long routes. UA JNB-EWR has never diverted once.


JNB-EWR is 390nm shorter than JNB-ATL, and the 789 still has to block a few seats to make that (if we are to believe another UA insider who has contributed to these threads recently). As it's a slightly smaller and slightly less capable craft (as demonstrated by the TechOps thread you don't acknowledge despite the depth and quality of the discussion) the 789 wouldn't be a better choice on JNB-ATL.

You have in the past claimed that A359s can't fly LAX=SYD with full passenger and bags load even though it's not even close to being the most challenging route the A359 flies, so anything you say on the topic is to be taken with more than a pinch of salt. Please consult the very detailed discussion again to expand your insight.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1406387
 
a320fan
Posts: 1060
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:04 am

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:50 am

moyangmm wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
moyangmm wrote:

With reduced payload of course, like DL did with their 350....


IIRC a UA insider said the 78X had 100 blocked seats on IAD-PEK, a flight 1400nm shorter, which if true would mean its payload capability on JNB-ATL would be so severely limited the route would be completely unviable.

Please refer back to the TechOps thread you were involved in so we can deal with facts, not fantasy.


Thanks for the information. So ok, the payload penalty for 787-10 is too much. Maybe DL should have used 787-9 for JNB-ATL then, like UA does. Their 787 is perfect for these super long routes. UA JNB-EWR has never diverted once.

A359 is more plane than the 789 - Higher TOW, bigger wing, More engine thrust, can carry more fuel. That hour difference plus the lower density of UAs 789 makes up the main reasons they’re having a higher completion rate.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7998
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:53 am

DN4CAAD wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
If anything, Delta will probably add aux tanks or take on a small ULR fleet like they had the 77Ls.

Is the new issue still a tire speed thing or is it just bad winds this time of year causing the recent diversions?


How does a faster TO roll (regarding tire issue) affect the possibility of diversion thousands of miles later?

Higher weight means faster take off speed which means faster tire speed. So if you can only carry X lbs of fuel for a max tire rotation speed of (for example) 150kts, you're limited in range, instead of being able to carry a full fuel load at 170kts. This could be alleviated by a longer runway, see DEN for example, or stronger tires as seen before with DL working with Goodyear(?) and Boeing for the stronger tires on the 77L.
Last edited by TWA772LR on Thu Dec 09, 2021 7:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
Lootess
Posts: 817
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 6:15 am

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:57 am

moyangmm wrote:
Seems like the aircraft used on DL201 is incapable of doing a 17+ hr flight... They should have used 787 for this mission, but DL doesn't have any. UA's JNB-EWR is 1 hour shorter and hasn't had any diversions.


EWR-JNB is shorter distance and with much less payload, has nothing to do with A359, which can do that same route non-stop with more payload.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 235
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Thu Dec 09, 2021 7:10 am

Lootess wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
Seems like the aircraft used on DL201 is incapable of doing a 17+ hr flight... They should have used 787 for this mission, but DL doesn't have any. UA's JNB-EWR is 1 hour shorter and hasn't had any diversions.


EWR-JNB is shorter distance and with much less payload, has nothing to do with A359, which can do that same route non-stop with more payload.


Shorter distance? Yes, only less than an hour of flight time. How do you know the respective load of UA JNB-EWR and DL JNB-ATL, can you provide the data?
 
airbazar
Posts: 10736
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Thu Dec 09, 2021 1:06 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
DN4CAAD wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
If anything, Delta will probably add aux tanks or take on a small ULR fleet like they had the 77Ls.

Is the new issue still a tire speed thing or is it just bad winds this time of year causing the recent diversions?


How does a faster TO roll (regarding tire issue) affect the possibility of diversion thousands of miles later?

Higher weight means faster take off speed which means faster tire speed. So if you can only carry X lbs of fuel for a max tire rotation speed of (for example) 150kts, you're limited in range, instead of being able to carry a full fuel load at 170kts. This could be alleviated by a longer runway, see DEN for example, or stronger tires as seen before with DL working with Goodyear(?) and Boeing for the stronger tires on the 77L.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the real reason the tire rotation speed is an issue is because of the altitude. The air is less dense at altitude therefore it takes more air passing over the wing to create lift. The only way to achieve more air passing over the wing is with more speed. In the end it all boils down to this: All things being equal, as the airfield altitude increases an airplane needs more speed to get the same weight off the ground. With enough speed and enough runway length, this "diversion" thread wouldn't exist :)
Having said that I haven't heard that tire rotation was an issue on the A350. If that is indeed not the case then the problem could be either lack thrust or lack of runway length to achieve the necessary speed.
 
reltney
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:34 am

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Thu Dec 09, 2021 4:02 pm

Billly2903 wrote:
I think it is possible. B767 is getting older so it needs a replacement. If Boeing doesn't launch B797 soon, then I think A330-800 would the best choice ( along with A321XLR ofc).


Delta just put out a letter stating the 330 is to big and the 321 doesn’t have the capacity or range to replace the 757 and 767. SPECIFICALLY they said there is nothing built in the market today that replaces the 757 and 767. So in that letter they pushed the 767 retirement to beyond 2026 and the 757 to beyond 2030. The airline likes both the Airbus product and the Boeing product but there is a gap no manufacture is filling. Wether you agree with Delta or not, they have more knowledge about aircraft performance in the airline world about what works. Well, they blew it on the 350 but they will get it into shape.

Cheers
 
777Mech
Posts: 1339
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:54 pm

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Thu Dec 09, 2021 4:22 pm

reltney wrote:
Billly2903 wrote:
I think it is possible. B767 is getting older so it needs a replacement. If Boeing doesn't launch B797 soon, then I think A330-800 would the best choice ( along with A321XLR ofc).


Delta just put out a letter stating the 330 is to big and the 321 doesn’t have the capacity or range to replace the 757 and 767. SPECIFICALLY they said there is nothing built in the market today that replaces the 757 and 767. So in that letter they pushed the 767 retirement to beyond 2026 and the 757 to beyond 2030. The airline likes both the Airbus product and the Boeing product but there is a gap no manufacture is filling. Wether you agree with Delta or not, they have more knowledge about aircraft performance in the airline world about what works. Well, they blew it on the 350 but they will get it into shape.

Cheers


We should put an asterisk next to the 757 because there is a viable replacement in the A321 LR or XLR, but DL doesn't want to pay for it. 767 I totally agree.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14602
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:00 pm

reltney wrote:
Well, they blew it on the 350 but they will get it into shape.

How did they "blow it," on the A350?



TWA772LR wrote:
If anything, Delta will probably add aux tanks or take on a small ULR fleet like they had the 77Ls.

The A359 is not certified to carry auxiliary tanks. Nor would it need to be, as it can easily carry more fuel by volume in its (massive!) already-existant center fuel tank, but what it cannot (at this time) do is carry more fuel by weight; making such a move useless for the AvGeek-imagined "problem" that DL is facing here.

The A359ULR is just a wing-twisted A359 that has been modified to carry more fuel volume in the existing tank, in addition to sealing the forward cargo bay and limiting the ZFW. They do not have extra tanks, and don't offer any higher MTOW than the A359s DL is using now; thus purchasing the -ULR would not help DL here in the least.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 9176
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:37 pm

airbazar wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
DN4CAAD wrote:

How does a faster TO roll (regarding tire issue) affect the possibility of diversion thousands of miles later?

Higher weight means faster take off speed which means faster tire speed. So if you can only carry X lbs of fuel for a max tire rotation speed of (for example) 150kts, you're limited in range, instead of being able to carry a full fuel load at 170kts. This could be alleviated by a longer runway, see DEN for example, or stronger tires as seen before with DL working with Goodyear(?) and Boeing for the stronger tires on the 77L.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the real reason the tire rotation speed is an issue is because of the altitude. The air is less dense at altitude therefore it takes more air passing over the wing to create lift. The only way to achieve more air passing over the wing is with more speed. In the end it all boils down to this: All things being equal, as the airfield altitude increases an airplane needs more speed to get the same weight off the ground. With enough speed and enough runway length, this "diversion" thread wouldn't exist :)
Having said that I haven't heard that tire rotation was an issue on the A350. If that is indeed not the case then the problem could be either lack thrust or lack of runway length to achieve the necessary speed.


Depends on what speed you’re talking about. The IAS for a given weight and conditions will be pretty much the same at all field elevations, the TAS and, hence, ground speed will increase at about 2% per 1,000’ plus some for ISA above standard, can’t remember the rule of thumb for temps. Ground speed is limited by tire limit speed.
 
eal46859
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:22 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Thu Dec 09, 2021 7:26 pm

I'm not understanding something.. SJU makes sense.. but why would they divert to BOS instead of just going to ATL? The flightware maps shows it flying directly to BOS.
 
User avatar
novarupta
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:32 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Thu Dec 09, 2021 7:35 pm

eal46859 wrote:
I'm not understanding something.. SJU makes sense.. but why would they divert to BOS instead of just going to ATL? The flightware maps shows it flying directly to BOS.

Because BOS is closer to JNB than ATL
 
jbmitt
Posts: 700
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 3:59 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Thu Dec 09, 2021 8:22 pm

novarupta wrote:
eal46859 wrote:
I'm not understanding something.. SJU makes sense.. but why would they divert to BOS instead of just going to ATL? The flightware maps shows it flying directly to BOS.

Because BOS is closer to JNB than ATL


Yes, the earth is round and sometimes geography can be deceiving.
 
JohanTally
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Thu Dec 09, 2021 9:12 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
reltney wrote:
Well, they blew it on the 350 but they will get it into shape.

How did they "blow it," on the A350?



TWA772LR wrote:
If anything, Delta will probably add aux tanks or take on a small ULR fleet like they had the 77Ls.

The A359 is not certified to carry auxiliary tanks. Nor would it need to be, as it can easily carry more fuel by volume in its (massive!) already-existant center fuel tank, but what it cannot (at this time) do is carry more fuel by weight; making such a move useless for the AvGeek-imagined "problem" that DL is facing here.

The A359ULR is just a wing-twisted A359 that has been modified to carry more fuel volume in the existing tank, in addition to sealing the forward cargo bay and limiting the ZFW. They do not have extra tanks, and don't offer any higher MTOW than the A359s DL is using now; thus purchasing the -ULR would not help DL here in the least.

Has their ever been a proposal for a thrust bump on the 359 because I know twins are technically overpowered due to engine out requirements? Or is this just a situation where the wing doesn't provide enough lift at the high altitude airports with higher takeoff weights?
 
FGITD
Posts: 2016
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Thu Dec 09, 2021 11:42 pm

Amazing how many experts in flight planning, load planning, and aircraft acquisition there are on this forum. Next time Delta should just defer to the collective knowledge of this website.

I struggle to trust the expertise of people who are absolutely certain that the a350 is unsuitable…but are also surprised to find out that BOS is closer to JNB than ATL.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 9079
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:51 am

a320fan wrote:
airbazar wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Why do so many think an airline should get a special plane for only one route?

I don't think anyone is out right saying they should. I think most of us are just fantasizing about possibilities :)
Why you ask? Maybe because that's exactly what they did with their 77L fleet? And it's not 1 route, it's 3 routes: JNB, SYD, DEL.
Getting an A350-1000 (or A340), is no more a "special plane" in their current fleet than operating 77L's in their previous fleet.
But the reality is that there's no question that operating the A359 with blocked seats is the way to go.

LAX to SYD doesn’t need any extra special equipment. Standard A350 is fine. So is a 77E, don’t need the LR.


It depends on how you define "standard" A359. 280 tons MTOW can operate LAX-SYD without breaking a sweat, but 264 tons is borderline. Delta's early A359s were 264 ton models.

With the 77E, I don't believe United had a single diversion while operating the 77E to SYD, but they only carried passengers and bags, very limited cargo. Delta hauled a lot of cargo to SYD with the 77L.
 
voxkel
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:17 pm

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Fri Dec 10, 2021 2:13 am

I’m surprised DL didn’t at least temporarily move the JNB flight to JFK. What is their rationale keeping the flight out of ATL when JFK is ~500sm closer and a much bigger business hub? Surely NYC-JNB can handle more than just UA.

On another note any chance we see AA launch MIA-JNB with the 789? Only slightly longer than JFK and would work well with AA’s SE network.
 
tinpusher007
Posts: 969
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:03 am

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Fri Dec 10, 2021 2:16 am

moyangmm wrote:
Lootess wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
Seems like the aircraft used on DL201 is incapable of doing a 17+ hr flight... They should have used 787 for this mission, but DL doesn't have any. UA's JNB-EWR is 1 hour shorter and hasn't had any diversions.


EWR-JNB is shorter distance and with much less payload, has nothing to do with A359, which can do that same route non-stop with more payload.


Shorter distance? Yes, only less than an hour of flight time. How do you know the respective load of UA JNB-EWR and DL JNB-ATL, can you provide the data?


Shorter distance and less dense cabin. UA's 789's only hold 257 pax as they are pretty premium heavy. By contrast, AA's 789's carry 285 pax and Turkish holds 300. So UA's configuration is pretty light compared to what the 789 can hold. DL's A359's hold 306 pax.
 
tinpusher007
Posts: 969
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:03 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Fri Dec 10, 2021 2:21 am

voxkel wrote:
I’m surprised DL didn’t at least temporarily move the JNB flight to JFK. What is their rationale keeping the flight out of ATL when JFK is ~500sm closer and a much bigger business hub? Surely NYC-JNB can handle more than just UA.

On another note any chance we see AA launch MIA-JNB with the 789? Only slightly longer than JFK and would work well with AA’s SE network.

ATL-JNB has been wildly profitable for DL. I think they prioritize the bigger hub and resulting connecting opportunities without competition over the stronger local market and competing with UA. But I agree, I think the NYC add would have been the smart play. With the exception of BOS, DL is being rather gun-shy with our network as compared to our competitors. I guess time will tell who made the right choice.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 235
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:17 am

tinpusher007 wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
Lootess wrote:

EWR-JNB is shorter distance and with much less payload, has nothing to do with A359, which can do that same route non-stop with more payload.


Shorter distance? Yes, only less than an hour of flight time. How do you know the respective load of UA JNB-EWR and DL JNB-ATL, can you provide the data?


Shorter distance and less dense cabin. UA's 789's only hold 257 pax as they are pretty premium heavy. By contrast, AA's 789's carry 285 pax and Turkish holds 300. So UA's configuration is pretty light compared to what the 789 can hold. DL's A359's hold 306 pax.


Premium heavy means higher OEW. One J seat is many times as heavy as one Y seat.

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