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! (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.

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! (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.

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".

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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 ...

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.”

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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).

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.