Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
evanb
Posts: 1083
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:20 am

Cubsrule wrote:
evanb wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
Could the 77L operate JNB-ATL full in Northern Hemisphere winter? I certainly remember some stops but cannot recall what the seat blocking situation was.


What do you mean by full? It would get absolutely nowhere near MTOW out of JNB at any time of year. Nowhere close!


Full cabin. A butt in every seat and their bags on the aircraft.


Not consistently. No cargo is going at times and just a question of how else you have to leave behind. 30C degree takeoff temperature at 5700ft AMSL, would mean about a 30t hit. 15C degree takeoff temperature about a 20t hit. So it's easy to see how the summer temperatures at JNB affect performance on the B77L. If you're also carrying extra fuel due to winds, then you're hitting too big of a penalty and rather carrying a bigger revenue payload and stoping for fuel.
 
a320fan
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:04 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Fri Dec 10, 2021 9:16 am

Regarding the MTOWs it’s largely a non issue for the aircraft itself and just a box filled in on the aircrafts paper work. There’s generally no physical differences and if an airline finds the WV they bought no longer suits their plan for how they want to operate the aircraft they can get it amended right up to the aircrafts structural MTOW, for a fee payable to Airbus of course. The A350 type sheet lists MTOW options from 210t to 280. I believe the original ‘standard’ was 275t, but from MSN 219 with the wing twist PIP 280t is available.

That DL originally purchased a lower MTOW than the structural maximum, plus a denser configuration compared to the airlines doing most the 350 ULH flying, indicates their original plan had the aircraft routing on shorter routes with the 77L remaining in the fleet on its longest flights. This is all coming down to choices DL made, nothing to indict the A350 as inferior on ULH routes than the 789 as one particular poster keeps trying to infer (for years now).

We don’t know what the limit is out of JNB, if it’s TOW due to ambient conditions then it’s possible any A350 in DLs fleet could do the flight, depending on if the hit is 5t or or more. If it’s something else like Tyre speed then I’m sure that could be overcome with the development of a special tyre with higher limits - if Delta decides it’s an issue it wants to push.
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 404
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Fri Dec 10, 2021 9:56 am

JohanTally wrote:
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?


Looking at Airbus A350 ACAPS, specifically on the section related with take-off weight limitation at ISA + 15 ˚C (ISA + 27˚F) conditions on a dry runway, for a 4500m runway at 6000ft there is the following:

A359 can lift ~265ton out of a MTOW of 280ton
A35K can lift ~290ton out of a MTOW of 316ton

Currently the highest thrust variant available for the A359 is the 84k lbs version of the Trent XWB while the A35k has the 97k lbs version Trent XWB.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10739
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Fri Dec 10, 2021 2:40 pm

a320fan wrote:
That DL originally purchased a lower MTOW than the structural maximum, plus a denser configuration compared to the airlines doing most the 350 ULH flying, indicates their original plan had the aircraft routing on shorter routes with the 77L remaining in the fleet on its longest flights.

I don't think we can make that conclusion at all. DL originally purchased the 268t version knowing they could easily upgrade to 275t if/when needed, which they did very quickly. The 280t version or the wing twist wasn't even available at the time. I'm pretty sure they knew, as everyone did that there would be future increases to MTOW. From this we can just as well conclude that they were already planning to retire the 777's.
The denser Y configuration makes perfect sense for an airline that only has a couple of routes where that configuration might be too much. Better to block off some seats when needed than lose revenue systemwide for not having enough seats.
 
32andBelow
Posts: 6175
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:17 pm

a320fan wrote:
Regarding the MTOWs it’s largely a non issue for the aircraft itself and just a box filled in on the aircrafts paper work. There’s generally no physical differences and if an airline finds the WV they bought no longer suits their plan for how they want to operate the aircraft they can get it amended right up to the aircrafts structural MTOW, for a fee payable to Airbus of course. The A350 type sheet lists MTOW options from 210t to 280. I believe the original ‘standard’ was 275t, but from MSN 219 with the wing twist PIP 280t is available.

That DL originally purchased a lower MTOW than the structural maximum, plus a denser configuration compared to the airlines doing most the 350 ULH flying, indicates their original plan had the aircraft routing on shorter routes with the 77L remaining in the fleet on its longest flights. This is all coming down to choices DL made, nothing to indict the A350 as inferior on ULH routes than the 789 as one particular poster keeps trying to infer (for years now).

We don’t know what the limit is out of JNB, if it’s TOW due to ambient conditions then it’s possible any A350 in DLs fleet could do the flight, depending on if the hit is 5t or or more. If it’s something else like Tyre speed then I’m sure that could be overcome with the development of a special tyre with higher limits - if Delta decides it’s an issue it wants to push.

What would be the reason that airlines want to have it delivered with lower MTOW?
 
ABMUC
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2021 10:21 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:19 pm

32andBelow wrote:
a320fan wrote:
Regarding the MTOWs it’s largely a non issue for the aircraft itself and just a box filled in on the aircrafts paper work. There’s generally no physical differences and if an airline finds the WV they bought no longer suits their plan for how they want to operate the aircraft they can get it amended right up to the aircrafts structural MTOW, for a fee payable to Airbus of course. The A350 type sheet lists MTOW options from 210t to 280. I believe the original ‘standard’ was 275t, but from MSN 219 with the wing twist PIP 280t is available.

That DL originally purchased a lower MTOW than the structural maximum, plus a denser configuration compared to the airlines doing most the 350 ULH flying, indicates their original plan had the aircraft routing on shorter routes with the 77L remaining in the fleet on its longest flights. This is all coming down to choices DL made, nothing to indict the A350 as inferior on ULH routes than the 789 as one particular poster keeps trying to infer (for years now).

We don’t know what the limit is out of JNB, if it’s TOW due to ambient conditions then it’s possible any A350 in DLs fleet could do the flight, depending on if the hit is 5t or or more. If it’s something else like Tyre speed then I’m sure that could be overcome with the development of a special tyre with higher limits - if Delta decides it’s an issue it wants to push.

What would be the reason that airlines want to have it delivered with lower MTOW?


Price.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14616
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:34 pm

32andBelow wrote:
What would be the reason that airlines want to have it delivered with lower MTOW?

  • The upfront price of the aircraft would be cheaper.
  • Overflight costs during its operation would be less.
  • (some) Maintenance costs during its service life would be less.

If you were a US airline planning to buy large widebodies, but only wanting to send them to London, Paris, and Brazil, from the US east coast; then it makes no sense to purchase max capability, as you'd be spending extra money in exchange for nothing. Modern widebodies can easily do those destinations without max capability.

But, say if market conditions changed, and now you wanted to send those aircraft on 16hr+ trips to Hong Kong, Singapore, Bangalore, etc etc; then you'd call Boeing/Airbus with a cheque ready to wire, and get the requisite software (et al) required to upgrade those aircraft to a higher w/v selection.

And now, some airlines (CX is a good example) actually have it to where the same aircraft can switch between different operational limitations based on planned routing: with just a few changes, a 77W that just did a 16hr JFK-HKG at max available weight, can turn around and do HKG-TPE at a lesser rating.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 9182
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Fri Dec 10, 2021 9:09 pm

Landing fees, too.
 
johns624
Posts: 5175
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Fri Dec 10, 2021 9:53 pm

moyangmm wrote:
tinpusher007 wrote:
moyangmm wrote:

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.
There are a lot fewer of them, too. Then you subtract the weight of the fewer passengers and the weight difference is even more.
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 404
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Sat Dec 11, 2021 12:24 am

moyangmm wrote:
AECM wrote:
JohanTally wrote:
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?


Looking at Airbus A350 ACAPS, specifically on the section related with take-off weight limitation at ISA + 15 ˚C (ISA + 27˚F) conditions on a dry runway, for a 4500m runway at 6000ft there is the following:

A359 can lift ~265ton out of a MTOW of 280ton
A35K can lift ~290ton out of a MTOW of 316ton

Currently the highest thrust variant available for the A359 is the 84k lbs version of the Trent XWB while the A35k has the 97k lbs version Trent XWB.


How much can 787-9 lift at the same condition? Seems like 787-9 can fly farther because of the lower fuel burn per hour (due to its lighter weight).


Looking at Boeing B787 ACAPS at ISA + 15°C, 6000ft in a 4500m dry runway the B789 with Hi-Thrust engines can lift ~236ton out of a MTOW of 254ton.
 
9252fly
Posts: 1253
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:19 am

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Sat Dec 11, 2021 12:38 am

johns624 wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
tinpusher007 wrote:

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.
There are a lot fewer of them, too. Then you subtract the weight of the fewer passengers and the weight difference is even more.


What about the potential revenue differential between a J vs Y seat? Historically and generally speaking, airlines find premium cabins to make the most gravy.
 
evanb
Posts: 1083
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Sat Dec 11, 2021 1:20 am

AECM wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
AECM wrote:

Looking at Airbus A350 ACAPS, specifically on the section related with take-off weight limitation at ISA + 15 ˚C (ISA + 27˚F) conditions on a dry runway, for a 4500m runway at 6000ft there is the following:

A359 can lift ~265ton out of a MTOW of 280ton
A35K can lift ~290ton out of a MTOW of 316ton

Currently the highest thrust variant available for the A359 is the 84k lbs version of the Trent XWB while the A35k has the 97k lbs version Trent XWB.


How much can 787-9 lift at the same condition? Seems like 787-9 can fly farther because of the lower fuel burn per hour (due to its lighter weight).


Looking at Boeing B787 ACAPS at ISA + 15°C, 6000ft in a 4500m dry runway the B789 with Hi-Thrust engines can lift ~236ton out of a MTOW of 254ton.


So, B789 looses 18t or 7%
A359 15t or 5%
A35K 26t or 8%

Not clear that the B789 or A35K would really help DL that much.
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 404
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Sat Dec 11, 2021 1:33 am

evanb wrote:
AECM wrote:
moyangmm wrote:

How much can 787-9 lift at the same condition? Seems like 787-9 can fly farther because of the lower fuel burn per hour (due to its lighter weight).


Looking at Boeing B787 ACAPS at ISA + 15°C, 6000ft in a 4500m dry runway the B789 with Hi-Thrust engines can lift ~236ton out of a MTOW of 254ton.


So, B789 looses 18t or 7%
A359 15t or 5%
A35K 26t or 8%

Not clear that the B789 or A35K would really help DL that much.


Just to put it into perspective, according to Boeing B777 ACAPS the B772/LR, with GE90-115BL engines, at ISA + 15°C, 6000ft in a 4500m dry runway can lift ~318ton out of a MTOW of 347ton.
 
DN4CAAD
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2021 12:55 pm

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Sat Dec 11, 2021 1:47 am

AECM wrote:
evanb wrote:
AECM wrote:

Looking at Boeing B787 ACAPS at ISA + 15°C, 6000ft in a 4500m dry runway the B789 with Hi-Thrust engines can lift ~236ton out of a MTOW of 254ton.


So, B789 looses 18t or 7%
A359 15t or 5%
A35K 26t or 8%

Not clear that the B789 or A35K would really help DL that much.


Just to put it into perspective, according to Boeing B777 ACAPS the B772/LR, with GE90-115BL engines, at ISA + 15°C, 6000ft in a 4500m dry runway can lift ~318ton out of a MTOW of 347ton.


Which puts it at 29t or 8.3%, similar to A35K
 
32andBelow
Posts: 6175
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Sat Dec 11, 2021 3:06 am

LAX772LR wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
What would be the reason that airlines want to have it delivered with lower MTOW?

  • The upfront price of the aircraft would be cheaper.
  • Overflight costs during its operation would be less.
  • (some) Maintenance costs during its service life would be less.

If you were a US airline planning to buy large widebodies, but only wanting to send them to London, Paris, and Brazil, from the US east coast; then it makes no sense to purchase max capability, as you'd be spending extra money in exchange for nothing. Modern widebodies can easily do those destinations without max capability.

But, say if market conditions changed, and now you wanted to send those aircraft on 16hr+ trips to Hong Kong, Singapore, Bangalore, etc etc; then you'd call Boeing/Airbus with a cheque ready to wire, and get the requisite software (et al) required to upgrade those aircraft to a higher w/v selection.

And now, some airlines (CX is a good example) actually have it to where the same aircraft can switch between different operational limitations based on planned routing: with just a few changes, a 77W that just did a 16hr JFK-HKG at max available weight, can turn around and do HKG-TPE at a lesser rating.

I guess that makes sense for fees. I just don’t get why airbus would charge so much more if they aren’t even doing anything to make it better. And I’m surprised the airports fall for a paper MTOW seems kinda scammy
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 9182
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Sat Dec 11, 2021 3:13 am

32andBelow wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
What would be the reason that airlines want to have it delivered with lower MTOW?

  • The upfront price of the aircraft would be cheaper.
  • Overflight costs during its operation would be less.
  • (some) Maintenance costs during its service life would be less.

If you were a US airline planning to buy large widebodies, but only wanting to send them to London, Paris, and Brazil, from the US east coast; then it makes no sense to purchase max capability, as you'd be spending extra money in exchange for nothing. Modern widebodies can easily do those destinations without max capability.

But, say if market conditions changed, and now you wanted to send those aircraft on 16hr+ trips to Hong Kong, Singapore, Bangalore, etc etc; then you'd call Boeing/Airbus with a cheque ready to wire, and get the requisite software (et al) required to upgrade those aircraft to a higher w/v selection.

And now, some airlines (CX is a good example) actually have it to where the same aircraft can switch between different operational limitations based on planned routing: with just a few changes, a 77W that just did a 16hr JFK-HKG at max available weight, can turn around and do HKG-TPE at a lesser rating.

I guess that makes sense for fees. I just don’t get why airbus would charge so much more if they aren’t even doing anything to make it better. And I’m surprised the airports fall for a paper MTOW seems kinda scammy


Engineering and certification costs. Think of it as you’re getting two different planes, one saves you money to operate, so OEM wants a cut.

Can’t say about airliners but bizjet I fly has two approved weights in the AFM, for different airport weight restriction or noise. At the lighter weight, I can operate at KSDL, KAPF for example or I’m unrestricted 24/7 at SYD, but at normal gross weights, I am restricted by noise curfew. About $40,000 to have the supplement installed—a couple of pages and some Velcro placards. Now, the G7500 has more weight options because MTOGW is over 100,000 pounds, so there’s a couple of under 100,000 weights plus a 100,000 pound weight supplement for KTEB.
 
evanb
Posts: 1083
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Sat Dec 11, 2021 6:36 am

AECM wrote:
Just to put it into perspective, according to Boeing B777 ACAPS the B772/LR, with GE90-115BL engines, at ISA + 15°C, 6000ft in a 4500m dry runway can lift ~318ton out of a MTOW of 347ton.


Indeed, see post #201.
 
RobertS975
Posts: 1051
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 2:17 am

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Sat Dec 11, 2021 5:33 pm

AECM wrote:
evanb wrote:
AECM wrote:

Looking at Boeing B787 ACAPS at ISA + 15°C, 6000ft in a 4500m dry runway the B789 with Hi-Thrust engines can lift ~236ton out of a MTOW of 254ton.


So, B789 looses 18t or 7%
A359 15t or 5%
A35K 26t or 8%

Not clear that the B789 or A35K would really help DL that


Clearly, they should have built the JNB airport at a lower altitude! Or a thousand miles closer to America.
 
Lootess
Posts: 818
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 6:15 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Sat Dec 11, 2021 6:03 pm

airbazar wrote:
a320fan wrote:
That DL originally purchased a lower MTOW than the structural maximum, plus a denser configuration compared to the airlines doing most the 350 ULH flying, indicates their original plan had the aircraft routing on shorter routes with the 77L remaining in the fleet on its longest flights.

I don't think we can make that conclusion at all. DL originally purchased the 268t version knowing they could easily upgrade to 275t if/when needed, which they did very quickly. The 280t version or the wing twist wasn't even available at the time. I'm pretty sure they knew, as everyone did that there would be future increases to MTOW. From this we can just as well conclude that they were already planning to retire the 777's.
The denser Y configuration makes perfect sense for an airline that only has a couple of routes where that configuration might be too much. Better to block off some seats when needed than lose revenue systemwide for not having enough seats.


Just like DL made their first post-merger order for the A333, they got the first-ever 242t delivered off the line. It's never lost on taking highest available MTOW deliveries as market conditions warrant, Haunstein eluded that much when they dropped the CPT tag to JNB.
 
JohanTally
Posts: 687
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:44 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Sun Dec 12, 2021 2:06 am

Lootess wrote:
airbazar wrote:
a320fan wrote:
That DL originally purchased a lower MTOW than the structural maximum, plus a denser configuration compared to the airlines doing most the 350 ULH flying, indicates their original plan had the aircraft routing on shorter routes with the 77L remaining in the fleet on its longest flights.

I don't think we can make that conclusion at all. DL originally purchased the 268t version knowing they could easily upgrade to 275t if/when needed, which they did very quickly. The 280t version or the wing twist wasn't even available at the time. I'm pretty sure they knew, as everyone did that there would be future increases to MTOW. From this we can just as well conclude that they were already planning to retire the 777's.
The denser Y configuration makes perfect sense for an airline that only has a couple of routes where that configuration might be too much. Better to block off some seats when needed than lose revenue systemwide for not having enough seats.


Just like DL made their first post-merger order for the A333, they got the first-ever 242t delivered off the line. It's never lost on taking highest available MTOW deliveries as market conditions warrant, Haunstein eluded that much when they dropped the CPT tag to JNB.

DL didn't intend to drop CPT they were forced to by the SADOT not granting them the rights to fly JNB-CPT. I don't like giving simpleflying clicks but this article explains the situation pretty well.

https://simpleflying.com/delta-cutting- ... wn-reason/
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14616
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Sun Dec 12, 2021 4:14 am

32andBelow wrote:
And I’m surprised the airports fall for a paper MTOW seems kinda scammy

Huh?

It's fairly straightforward: aircraft will only be operated at XYZ weight or less into your airport, therefore we only pay the price for XYZ or less.

How is that "scammy?"
 
32andBelow
Posts: 6175
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:02 am

LAX772LR wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
And I’m surprised the airports fall for a paper MTOW seems kinda scammy

Huh?

It's fairly straightforward: aircraft will only be operated at XYZ weight or less into your airport, therefore we only pay the price for XYZ or less.

How is that "scammy?"

Cus the plane has the capability to operate at a higher weight. It would be like driving a bus and saying it only has 4 seats so I shouldn’t have to pay for bus parking. It doesn’t take up any less space on the airport. Atc has to use all the same rules as any other a350. It’s the same plane.
 
ABMUC
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2021 10:21 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:25 am

32andBelow wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
And I’m surprised the airports fall for a paper MTOW seems kinda scammy

Huh?

It's fairly straightforward: aircraft will only be operated at XYZ weight or less into your airport, therefore we only pay the price for XYZ or less.

How is that "scammy?"

Cus the plane has the capability to operate at a higher weight. It would be like driving a bus and saying it only has 4 seats so I shouldn’t have to pay for bus parking. It doesn’t take up any less space on the airport. Atc has to use all the same rules as any other a350. It’s the same plane.


Its about weight not size...
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14616
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:43 am

32andBelow wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
And I’m surprised the airports fall for a paper MTOW seems kinda scammy

How is that "scammy?"

Cus the plane has the capability to operate at a higher weight. It would be like driving a bus and saying it only has 4 seats so I shouldn’t have to pay for bus parking. It doesn’t take up any less space on the airport. Atc has to use all the same rules as any other a350. It’s the same plane.

On the financial front: they care about how much the plane weighs, not about how big it is.

Two of the same plane can be of vastly different weights, depending upon how you load/configure them, thus customers pay accordingly.
 
Lootess
Posts: 818
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 6:15 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Sun Dec 12, 2021 1:55 pm

JohanTally wrote:
Lootess wrote:
airbazar wrote:
I don't think we can make that conclusion at all. DL originally purchased the 268t version knowing they could easily upgrade to 275t if/when needed, which they did very quickly. The 280t version or the wing twist wasn't even available at the time. I'm pretty sure they knew, as everyone did that there would be future increases to MTOW. From this we can just as well conclude that they were already planning to retire the 777's.
The denser Y configuration makes perfect sense for an airline that only has a couple of routes where that configuration might be too much. Better to block off some seats when needed than lose revenue systemwide for not having enough seats.


Just like DL made their first post-merger order for the A333, they got the first-ever 242t delivered off the line. It's never lost on taking highest available MTOW deliveries as market conditions warrant, Haunstein eluded that much when they dropped the CPT tag to JNB.

DL didn't intend to drop CPT they were forced to by the SADOT not granting them the rights to fly JNB-CPT. I don't like giving simpleflying clicks but this article explains the situation pretty well.

https://simpleflying.com/delta-cutting- ... wn-reason/


I was referring to the comment “as a result of commercial, operational, and market developments making it feasible for Delta to operate a direct return routing of Atlanta-Johannesburg-Atlanta using 306-seat Airbus A350-900 aircraft, Delta no longer plans to operate the triangle routing of Atlanta-Johannesburg-Cape Town-Atlanta.”. Haunstein mentioned in a town hall about future deliveries making it possible at the time.
 
reltney
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:34 am

Re: Delta and A330-800?

Mon Dec 13, 2021 3:03 am

777Mech wrote:
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.


No astrick, you can put one but Delta doesn’t think so. Delta bought the 321 neo and it’s studies say it and still say the xlr can’t do the same thing without giving up something by stating “ Nothing in production can replace those two.” The 321 comes close they say but not better except in fuel consumption. Not my words but from some who study it just a bit more then others. I would love new planes and don’t care too much who builds them but the older 757 carry more farther and with full passengers. Incontrovertible . 757-300…even better,nothing close but a 767. Just a class in the middle.

No doubt there will be stretches in performance. It really comes down to this: The 757 can do a particular job 100% of the time but the airline only uses 90% of it capabilities. The 737m and 321 xlr/neo can do the same job 90% of the time. Me, I like the extra performance/safety factors.

Best thing is my brother flies Airbus and I fly the Boeing on the same routes and have few times on the same day because how we bid so we can meet up. I never had to leave one seat empty or make a fuel stop to get anywhere, yet he has.

I am getting the popcorn out and watching the next move. Boeing gotta pull it out or will loose even the legacy of the 757.

Cheers
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Mon Dec 13, 2021 7:19 am

Yes - and the DC-8-71 can do all that too, and more. But they don't fly anymore because they are not economical to fly. The 757s are good, but use more thrust and that thrust is less efficient.

The 777LR could generate more revenue for this one route for DL, but across the fleet the A359 is overall a better choice (more profitable) for DL - even if you have to block off seats on this route.

If Boeing could execute a program the 757 would have been replaced a long time ago by the Y1 (if 787 worked) or NMA/MOM (if MAX wasn't deadly).
 
majano
Posts: 463
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Sun Dec 26, 2021 11:30 am

Looking at the DL201 history and schedule on both Flightradar24 and Flightaware, it appears to me that the frequency of this service has been increased marginally (and very recently?) to 5 times weekly. For those in the know, is this a temporary adjustment or is there a Delta announcement about a frequency increase (made or coming)?
 
grjplanes
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 5:52 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Tue Dec 28, 2021 12:47 pm

majano wrote:
Looking at the DL201 history and schedule on both Flightradar24 and Flightaware, it appears to me that the frequency of this service has been increased marginally (and very recently?) to 5 times weekly. For those in the know, is this a temporary adjustment or is there a Delta announcement about a frequency increase (made or coming)?


https://www.travelnews.co.za/article/de ... hannesburg

Was reported in South African travel media back in October. Surely they'll want to up further to daily in the near future.
 
majano
Posts: 463
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Tue Dec 28, 2021 7:58 pm

grjplanes wrote:
majano wrote:
Looking at the DL201 history and schedule on both Flightradar24 and Flightaware, it appears to me that the frequency of this service has been increased marginally (and very recently?) to 5 times weekly. For those in the know, is this a temporary adjustment or is there a Delta announcement about a frequency increase (made or coming)?


https://www.travelnews.co.za/article/de ... hannesburg

Was reported in South African travel media back in October. Surely they'll want to up further to daily in the near future.

Hopefully Delta can jump through whatever hurdles the South African regulators have lined up and the Cape Town stop can be approved. That would open up possibilities of different routings.
 
evanb
Posts: 1083
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Tue Dec 28, 2021 10:20 pm

majano wrote:
Hopefully Delta can jump through whatever hurdles the South African regulators have lined up and the Cape Town stop can be approved. That would open up possibilities of different routings.


As opposed to just starting a separate non-stop to/from Cape Town? They could start that up to 4x weekly immediately with no regulatory constraints. US allocations under the bilateral are not fully utilised.

If they were going to win the regulatory battle with the South Africans that would have happened already. They have given it up since they did not push US DOT or State to seek arbitration or further formal sanctions other than a trivial tit-for-tat stoping SAA doing the same (which was moot since the sanction blocked SAA from doing something which they were not doing or had no intention of doing).
 
SESGDL
Posts: 3137
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:25 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Tue Dec 28, 2021 10:45 pm

majano wrote:
grjplanes wrote:
majano wrote:
Looking at the DL201 history and schedule on both Flightradar24 and Flightaware, it appears to me that the frequency of this service has been increased marginally (and very recently?) to 5 times weekly. For those in the know, is this a temporary adjustment or is there a Delta announcement about a frequency increase (made or coming)?


https://www.travelnews.co.za/article/de ... hannesburg

Was reported in South African travel media back in October. Surely they'll want to up further to daily in the near future.

Hopefully Delta can jump through whatever hurdles the South African regulators have lined up and the Cape Town stop can be approved. That would open up possibilities of different routings.


For what? This flight hasn’t had to make a stop in a while. Outside of a few weeks per year when conditions are unique and make the nonstop flight difficult, the 359 shouldn’t have an issue the vast majority of the time.

Jeremy
 
majano
Posts: 463
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Wed Dec 29, 2021 2:11 pm

SESGDL wrote:
majano wrote:
grjplanes wrote:

https://www.travelnews.co.za/article/de ... hannesburg

Was reported in South African travel media back in October. Surely they'll want to up further to daily in the near future.

Hopefully Delta can jump through whatever hurdles the South African regulators have lined up and the Cape Town stop can be approved. That would open up possibilities of different routings.


For what? This flight hasn’t had to make a stop in a while. Outside of a few weeks per year when conditions are unique and make the nonstop flight difficult, the 359 shouldn’t have an issue the vast majority of the time.

Jeremy

I was thinking more from a demand and revenue optimisation rather than an aircraft limitations perspective. I was hoping perhaps 4 days out of 7 they do JNB-ATL direct and 3 of 7 JNB-CPT-ATL. Servicing CPT could stimulate additional demand in my layman's mind. Evanb noted above that if the CPT demand was good enough Delta could launch direct CPT service without too much bother. I agree with you that the hoo-ha-ha about the few technical stops a few weeks ago was nonsense.
 
majano
Posts: 463
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: DL201 diverts to SJU

Fri Feb 18, 2022 9:41 am

Looks like Delta is applying for direct CPT service, alongside a reapplication for ATL-JNB-CPT which was previously not approved.
https://www.businessinsider.co.za/trave ... ion-2022-2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ADent, ADL77W, alatar144, ANA787, ben175, doug, eightcone, FRALIM, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], IAHflyguy, indywa, jakef, jashah, jetcentric787, justplanesmart, MD, Sancho99504, SK A330-300, Someone83, SQ22, TK105, travaz, WesYan and 192 guests

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