MIflyer12 wrote:

airzim wrote:

Double standard time. Continental was vilified for flying 757s TATL from Europe with an occasional fuel stop due to winter winds. "misrepresentation of non stop service", "wrong plane", "shouldn't fly the route if they don't fly the right plane", etc. No comparable outrage for sainted Delta.

Hmm, I was asking about DL's priority for reliable ops in the other thread.

It took UA years - Y E A R S - to pull the 757s of the TATL routes where Gander/Goose Bay/Bangor stops were a bit too frequent. Let's see if DL proves as mentally slow and indifferent to passenger needs. UA under Smisek set a high bar for contempt.

DL isn't "mentally" slow and the diversions aren't anywhere near the frequency of the CO TATL diversions.

Boof02671 wrote:

F27500 wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

The plane can’t take full fuel, passengers and cargo due to its limitations.

So .. scheduling the wrong plane for the mission, then?

They don’t have a plane that has that capability

Some employees were not happy when the 777 was retired.

777Mech wrote:

majano wrote:

777Mech wrote:

It's not misleading. Since the route has launched on the 350, the payload hasn't been as demanding as it has been with the new restrictions in place.

What you don't see is cargo going "no ride" in JNB, to accommodate any PAX loads going beyond the payload limitations going non stop. They are making decisions each time it operates as to if it's cost effective to make a tech stop or no-ride cargo and pax to make the trip non-stop.

The OP's last paragraph stated "anyone knows why DL201 diverts soo often?" It clearly has not. If you would like to discuss payload, several posters have been asking about the loads on the route and particularly during the BOS diversion. Maybe you should respond to them.

Stopping twice in a week is pretty often for a route that only operates 3 times a week, and it is again having to stop, this time in MIA. I'm just saying.

To answer your last question, no one that likes their job in the airline industry is going to give out internal and confidential information out like that. That's just dumb.

Yah cus the weather condition probably didn’t change yet

DL757NYC wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

F27500 wrote:

So .. scheduling the wrong plane for the mission, then?

They don’t have a plane that has that capability

Some employees were not happy when the 777 was retired.

The 777 is a capable and reliable aircraft. Unfortunately it is older technology. The A350 in Delta's configuration has 8 more seats with roughly 22% lower fuel burn. With those numbers, it's hard to justify keeping the 777 in the fleet.

DL757NYC wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

F27500 wrote:

So .. scheduling the wrong plane for the mission, then?

They don’t have a plane that has that capability

Some employees were not happy when the 777 was retired.

I don’t think DL’s executives didn’t care about what employees felt. DL was hemorrhaging money.

Dldiamondboy wrote:

I know sometimes JNB has fuel shortages. DL would occasionally tanker fuel in with the 777L's. This is from a DL 777L driver at the time. He indicated sometimes they were just barely under max landing weight.

I think someone was telling a good story. JNB doesn't have regular fuel shortages. They've had one or two problems in the past, just like any major airport with things like a pipeline failure and an unexpected refinery failure, but even then, you simply couldn't tanker fuel on a 14+ hour ATL-JNB flight and justify it. What does regularly happen is carrying an extra few tons during the South African summer when a 4pm arrival at JNB can often coincide with a thunderstorm and might require some time holding. The reality is that ATL-JNB probably goes out within 10t or 20t of MTOW (probably sometimes even at MTOW). Carrying an extra 10t or 20t of fuel (to tanker) would firstly be very expensive, but would barely make a dent in the roughly 100t of fuel that you'd need for the return leg. It would be must more reasonable to fly somewhere close to refuel. I recall when JNB once did have a fuel problem some airlines flew to Durban to pick up fuel.

Also, the max landing weight of the B777L is higher than many people would expect at 223t, which is substantially higher than the OEW of 145t. This creates a problem in that your payload of pax and cargo can't be higher than 78t. The tankered fuel and required reserves (yes, in planning you plan that you don't use your reserves) would need to come into this, meaning that tankering 10t or 20t of fuel might also eat into your payload. Now, it's very unlikely that the cargo and pax would be anywhere near 78t, but it would be a consideration that might significantly limit the tankering capabilty. So does an airline chose to leave payload behind to tanker, or find some other solution? Tankering fuel on shorthaul is common, but tankering fuel on an ultra long haul just isn't a thing.

Talking about tankering, there is an interesting flight between Cape Town and Antarctica at the moment where they tanker the return fuel on an A340-300. However, flight times in both directions are 5 hours. To tanker this fuel, they have significant limits on payload in order to his the max landing weight. This shows the special planning required to tanker the roughly 35t for the return flight.

Not saying it never happened, but just seems implausible.

Boof02671 wrote:

Some employees were not happy when the 777 was retired.

I don’t think DL’s executives didn’t care about what employees felt. DL was hemorrhaging money.[/quote]

Regrettably, I don't think airlines should make fleet decisions based on what employees feel. Sure, their feedback is an important consideration, but it's not what's going to make decisions.

No one was “happy” to see the 777 retired but it was a direct casualty of the covid pandemic downturn, cost saving austerity measures, and restructuring for the the future.

With the multi year downturn on long haul international, the order book for new aircraft, and the ability to obtain second hand aircraft of similar vintage to their other fleet types it was a tough but necessary decision.

Removing 2 small sub fleets, 2 engine types, a pilot category and leading to overall fleet simplication it made sense.

This allowed them to return all the 359, 332, 333 to service.

They were not going to keep the 77L for 1-2 “vanity” routes.

32andBelow wrote:

777Mech wrote:

majano wrote:

The OP's last paragraph stated "anyone knows why DL201 diverts soo often?" It clearly has not. If you would like to discuss payload, several posters have been asking about the loads on the route and particularly during the BOS diversion. Maybe you should respond to them.

Stopping twice in a week is pretty often for a route that only operates 3 times a week, and it is again having to stop, this time in MIA. I'm just saying.

To answer your last question, no one that likes their job in the airline industry is going to give out internal and confidential information out like that. That's just dumb.

Yah cus the weather condition probably didn’t change yet

This isn't a weather event it's higher payloads than what DL was having before public hysteria regarding the omnicron variant. Instead of blocking seats DL is sending full aircraft out of JNB and making tech stops along the way at US airports BOS SJU MIA. Because this aircraft only operates ATL-JNB-ATL and doesn't have any other flights planned it can make up the delays. The 359 DL has been using is only scheduled six flights a week albeit long flights but plenty of slack to recover from westbound delays.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

No one was “happy” to see the 777 retired but it was a direct casualty of the covid pandemic downturn, cost saving austerity measures, and restructuring for the the future.

With the multi year downturn on long haul international, the order book for new aircraft, and the ability to obtain second hand aircraft of similar vintage to their other fleet types it was a tough but necessary decision.

Removing 2 small sub fleets, 2 engine types, a pilot category and leading to overall fleet simplication it made sense.

This allowed them to return all the 359, 332, 333 to service.

They were not going to keep the 77L for 1-2 “vanity” routes.

To be fair is anyone happy when any type retires. The Q400 is often called a skull rattler and I am sure a tear will be shed when the last commercial flight occurs

The amount of arguing over something that is NOT that important bigger picture, is amazing. Oh dear

Cubsrule wrote:

Nobody is choosing a flight out of South Africa based on schedule these days.

Debatable.

But customers do care about making their connections.

n9801f wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Nobody is choosing a flight out of South Africa based on schedule these days.

Debatable.

But customers do care about making their connections.

Sure. But being reacommadated at ATL is probably one of the easier airports to do it. Plus DL has a good amount of foreknowledge of who will and won't make their connection and can start working on that before the wheels hit the ground. (Or even before the wheels leave the ground..)

JohanTally wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

777Mech wrote:

Stopping twice in a week is pretty often for a route that only operates 3 times a week, and it is again having to stop, this time in MIA. I'm just saying.

To answer your last question, no one that likes their job in the airline industry is going to give out internal and confidential information out like that. That's just dumb.

Yah cus the weather condition probably didn’t change yet

This isn't a weather event it's higher payloads than what DL was having before public hysteria regarding the omnicron variant. Instead of blocking seats DL is sending full aircraft out of JNB and making tech stops along the way at US airports BOS SJU MIA. Because this aircraft only operates ATL-JNB-ATL and doesn't have any other flights planned it can make up the delays. The 359 DL has been using is only scheduled six flights a week albeit long flights but plenty of slack to recover from westbound delays.

So id rather them get our citizens home before they either get sick or stuck over there.

Boof02671 wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

I have a vague memory that its against the rules / not desirable to fuel a commercial jet while passengers are on the plane / boarding the plane.

So, I'm curious, do they fuel the planes at the tech stop with the passengers still on it? Or does everyone get shuffled off into an enclosed area or the terminal?

Planes are fueled everyday in the US with passengers onboard. Only requirement is a jetway or air stairs must be attached to the plane.

Flights would never go out on time of passengers weren’t allowed on the plane during fueling.

Thank you. Absolutely. Ever see the fuel truck under the wing while you're settling in, folks? It wasn't more than a couple years ago that an EMB 175 I was taking from somewhere to home had to divert to Norfolk for more fuel due to delays into NYC. We orbited until we could orbit no more and then made a very-fun descent into Norfolk, where we fueled and sat on the tarmac until we could go straight to NYC. Nobody got off the plane.

• People are exiting the country in larger-than-typical numbers, for both health and governmental reasons.
• The airline has decided to open more seats than would be available, in order to accommodate the atypically high demand.
• The tradeoff for offering more seats than typical, is more stops than typical on the westbound.

At the risk of getting the mods involved, I just want to ask 'What governmental issues?'. There has been no change in government, policy or attitude.
The only reason for the higher demand are one, primarily the epidemic, and two, it is summer holiday season here in South Africa, so foreign workers are wanting to go home for the Christmas and New Year.

evanb wrote:

So something everyone seems to be missing here. The flight on 28 Nov was a planned diversion. The decision took place prior to take off and the flight was dispatched JNB-BOS with prior planning. Last night's flight (2 Dec) was not a planned diversion. The flight was dispatched as JNB-ATL, and if you look at the track was heading to ATL. The decision to divert to SJU was taken 10 or 11 hours into the flight. That suggests that this was due to changing weather conditions on route, or maybe even an entirely different reason. That could have happened on any aircraft. Even if it was a B777-200LR, changing conditions could have required a diversion.

I am sorry but you are wrong. I can tell you with 600% certainty, this stop was planned and finalized well over 36 hours before the flight left JNB. A significant amount of coordination took place to allow it to be a fuel stop with a relatively quick turn.

LAX772LR wrote:

These, are not normal ops.

• People are exiting the country in larger-than-typical numbers, for both health and governmental reasons.
• The airline has decided to open more seats than would be available, in order to accommodate the atypically high demand.
• The tradeoff for offering more seats than typical, is more stops than typical on the westbound.

This is not something they plan on doing into perpetuity.

You keep asserting that Delta is purposefully selling more seats to get people out of South Africa, hence the inability to fly the route nonstop. Care to back that up with any data whatsoever? Literally any data or link?

Any link suggesting that, in the last 10 days, Delta has opened up more seats for sale on the plane specifically due to the Omicron variant?

LAX772LR wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Yes. As clearly stated the first time: you very demonstrably do.

• You ignore the seat density of DL's aircraft relative to any other full-service A359 operator.
• You ignore that a virus-induced exodus is driving westbound demand beyond general expectations that the airline anticipated for the season.
• You ignore than the most payload-range capable aircraft in the modern skies (772LR) also sometimes made diversions against shifting weather in winter on that same route.

Yet, with all of that said, you both still (somehow manage to) ignore the fact that the aircraft STILL completed its mission on the overwhelming majority of days when asked to perform beyond what was initially anticipated for the time frame.

right... Demand (aka. sold load factor for what matters here) and aircraft density are outside of Delta's control?

Do you somehow not realize that that's what we've been trying to tell you from the start?

It's in their control, and the tradeoff they've decided to take is the occasional (sometimes planned) penalty in exchange for more traffic than normal, due to a period of atypically high demand.

I'm aware you think you're making a point you haven't made. I'm also aware you have no idea whether that's accurate or not. Unless you have data about Delta's sales in the last ten days on the JNB-ATL route, trying to berate other posters based on your own assumptions isn't a good look and it's a useless point made entirely on assumptions.

Perhaps there are more passengers that want to fly on the route since Omicron but 1. you don't know that. 2. None of us know the accompanying offset due to South Africans banned from the USA simultaneously, 3. Neither of us know whether Delta actually decided to sell more seats on the plane due to increased demand.

n9801f wrote:

But customers do care about making their connections.

I've seen this deep concern for missed connections several times now in this thread. I have to ask, is there anywhere on Earth that's better for re-routing a plane full of misconnected passengers, than ATL at around 10:00 AM? People are not missing the last connecting flight of the evening, they're at the busiest connecting hub in the hemisphere. USCBP shouldn't be much of an issue, either, with KE35 presumably landed at 9:15 and nearly fully processed and nothing else until DL609 from CUN at 10:39. On a holiday peak travel day, I'd understand concerns about lack of capacity on later departure banks, but apart from that? It's a quiet time of the year for everyone not trying to get out of South Africa. Certainly it's not actually worse for Delta's PR than the alternative of leaving people behind in JNB with blocked empty seats on the airplane, not in these circumstances.

dfwfanboy wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

These, are not normal ops.

• People are exiting the country in larger-than-typical numbers, for both health and governmental reasons.
• The airline has decided to open more seats than would be available, in order to accommodate the atypically high demand.
• The tradeoff for offering more seats than typical, is more stops than typical on the westbound.

This is not something they plan on doing into perpetuity.

You keep asserting that Delta is purposefully selling more seats to get people out of South Africa, hence the inability to fly the route nonstop. Care to back that up with any data whatsoever? Literally any data or link?

Any link suggesting that, in the last 10 days, Delta has opened up more seats for sale on the plane specifically due to the Omicron variant?

Exactly. Also, the assertion that people are literally fleeing South Africa aa it it was some country about to collapse is just ignorant.

32andBelow wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Yah cus the weather condition probably didn’t change yet

This isn't a weather event it's higher payloads than what DL was having before public hysteria regarding the omnicron variant. Instead of blocking seats DL is sending full aircraft out of JNB and making tech stops along the way at US airports BOS SJU MIA. Because this aircraft only operates ATL-JNB-ATL and doesn't have any other flights planned it can make up the delays. The 359 DL has been using is only scheduled six flights a week albeit long flights but plenty of slack to recover from westbound delays.

So id rather them get our citizens home before they either get sick or stuck over there.

I respect that DL is not blocking seats so that more people can make it home and hopefully those individuals are going beyond the testing protocols in place. If the DL 359s had less slack in the schedule I feel that DL would block seats to provide better performance.

JohanTally wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

This isn't a weather event it's higher payloads than what DL was having before public hysteria regarding the omnicron variant. Instead of blocking seats DL is sending full aircraft out of JNB and making tech stops along the way at US airports BOS SJU MIA. Because this aircraft only operates ATL-JNB-ATL and doesn't have any other flights planned it can make up the delays. The 359 DL has been using is only scheduled six flights a week albeit long flights but plenty of slack to recover from westbound delays.

So id rather them get our citizens home before they either get sick or stuck over there.

I respect that DL is not blocking seats so that more people can make it home and hopefully those individuals are going beyond the testing protocols in place. If the DL 359s had less slack in the schedule I feel that DL would block seats to provide better performance.

AirFleets is showing Delta still has two A350s stored.

574DZ and 576DZ.

https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Del ... d-a350.htm

I find it interesting that they have chosen BOS, SJU and MIA for the diversions this week. Only one flight made it nonstop out of the past four flights. I do wonder how the diversion airports were chosen. Fortunately there have been options within the United States and they didn’t have to fuel stop before crossing the Atlantic since that is far more complicated from a crew perspective.

When AA diverted DEL-JFK to gander, they had to send an A321 with a new crew there since they didn’t have any flights to meet the diverting airplane. They diverted for the last three days in a row to Bangor. I find the logistics of these ultra long haul diversions fascinating. COVID precautions adds an extra layer of complexity with international diversions so at least Delta has made all their stops within the United States.

Boof02671 wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

So id rather them get our citizens home before they either get sick or stuck over there.

I respect that DL is not blocking seats so that more people can make it home and hopefully those individuals are going beyond the testing protocols in place. If the DL 359s had less slack in the schedule I feel that DL would block seats to provide better performance.

AirFleets is showing Delta still has two A350s stored.

574DZ and 576DZ.

https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Del ... d-a350.htm

That's what I mean they can afford to have lower utilization right now. Do you know at what point new deliveries became the 280t variant? I heard the original deliveries were 268t and later uprated to 275t.

JohanTally wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

I respect that DL is not blocking seats so that more people can make it home and hopefully those individuals are going beyond the testing protocols in place. If the DL 359s had less slack in the schedule I feel that DL would block seats to provide better performance.

AirFleets is showing Delta still has two A350s stored.

574DZ and 576DZ.

https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Del ... d-a350.htm

That's what I mean they can afford to have lower utilization right now. Do you know at what point new deliveries became the 280t variant? I heard the original deliveries were 268t and later uprated to 275t.

I believe that N511DN would be the last of the 275Ts, as N512DN and later have the new sharklets, which makes them capable of 280T, IINM.

JohanTally wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

I respect that DL is not blocking seats so that more people can make it home and hopefully those individuals are going beyond the testing protocols in place. If the DL 359s had less slack in the schedule I feel that DL would block seats to provide better performance.

AirFleets is showing Delta still has two A350s stored.

574DZ and 576DZ.

https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Del ... d-a350.htm

That's what I mean they can afford to have lower utilization right now. Do you know at what point new deliveries became the 280t variant? I heard the original deliveries were 268t and later uprated to 275t.

The two aircraft that Airfleets is showing in storage are recently acquired used aircraft that are not ready to go into service.

FWIW, Delta 201 spent less than one hour on the ground in MIA before continuing on to ATL. Not a big deal for those trying to get back to the USA.

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.

dfwfanboy wrote:

You keep asserting that Delta is purposefully selling more seats to get people out of South Africa, hence the inability to fly the route nonstop. Care to back that up with any data whatsoever? Literally any data or link?

Generally not the kind of thing airlines choose to place in a link. But it's not like you need to take my word for it; ever consider looking at the loads on the diverted ops, versus typical? That should've been your first clue. Ya don't need Deltamatic access to do so (though for your sake, I'd hope you know better than to think a public seatmap would show accurate counts, either).

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Also, the assertion that people are literally fleeing South Africa aa it it was some country about to collapse is just ignorant.

You speak of "ignorance," yet don't seem aware that the air passenger out-migration from S.Africa over the last 2wks has been so significant that governments from multiple countries (e.g. everything from Turkey, to Romania, to Russia) continue to commission "rescue flights" to repatriate the number of nationals unable to be accommodated by scheduled services...........

TrafficCop wrote:

Different strategy. DL getting extra revenue with extra pax but giving some back with fuel stop and re-booking of mis-connects. UA giving up some revenue blocking seats but completing mission non-stop. I cant say which is better but that appears to be what is going on. The DL flight is longer so this impacts them a bit more.

I'm not even sure it's a "extra revenue" thing. If I was stranded in SA and DL sold me a seat I'd be grateful. There's a perception of goodwill in doing that.
With only a 1 hour fuel stop I'm not even sure that there are many, if any mis-connnections. We haven't yet heard about passengers complaining about missed connections. Airlines have a tendency to expedite connections and hold off flights in these situations.

n9801f wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Nobody is choosing a flight out of South Africa based on schedule these days.

Debatable.
But customers do care about making their connections.

Have you head about missed connections from this flight? Have you even heard about anyone complaining about the tech stop?
Trust me, having been in a similar situation myself every single person on those flights is happy and appreciative of being on it at any cost.

LAX772LR wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Also, the assertion that people are literally fleeing South Africa aa it it was some country about to collapse is just ignorant.

You speak of "ignorance," yet don't seem aware that the air passenger out-migration from S.Africa over the last 2wks has been so significant that governments from multiple countries (e.g. everything from Turkey, to Romania, to Russia) continue to commission "rescue flights" to repatriate the number of nationals unable to be accommodated by scheduled services...........

Some European countries such as the UK actually suspended flights from SA and there are passengers on these DL and UA flights that are bound for Europe. People are trying to get out at any cost or itinerary. It's not just to flee the virus but it's Xmas too and in order to beat the 2 week quarantine just imposed on people flying from SA, upon arrival and still be able to spend xmas with family and friends a lot of people who already had reservations for the holiday period are trying to get out earlier.
Unlike UA, DL is actually in a better situation to help these people out because they have extra seats that had been blocked off. UA just chooses to operate an aircraft with a lower density of seats. This most likely explains the difference for both airlines, on top of JNB-EWR being a shorter route.

LAXLHR wrote:

The amount of arguing over something that is NOT that important bigger picture, is amazing. Oh dear

Amen.

So far, it appears that today's (Monday) DL 201 to ATL is going to operate as a nonstop. As I write this, it is about 4 hours till departure.

Just took off and showing a direct route thus far.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/id/ ... edule-0835

LAX772LR wrote:

zkojq wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

That, and keep in mind that (unlike AI and EY), DL's 77Ls were not tanked

How do you mean?

The 772LR is certified for passenger operations with up to 3 auxiliary fuel tanks behind the wing, with advertised ranges of 8550nm without and 9300nm with.

AI (and later EY) were the only two 77L operators who opted for the supplementary tankage.

Ah ok, thanks.

wjcandee wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

I have a vague memory that its against the rules / not desirable to fuel a commercial jet while passengers are on the plane / boarding the plane.

So, I'm curious, do they fuel the planes at the tech stop with the passengers still on it? Or does everyone get shuffled off into an enclosed area or the terminal?

Planes are fueled everyday in the US with passengers onboard. Only requirement is a jetway or air stairs must be attached to the plane.

Flights would never go out on time of passengers weren’t allowed on the plane during fueling.

Thank you. Absolutely. Ever see the fuel truck under the wing while you're settling in, folks? It wasn't more than a couple years ago that an EMB 175 I was taking from somewhere to home had to divert to Norfolk for more fuel due to delays into NYC. We orbited until we could orbit no more and then made a very-fun descent into Norfolk, where we fueled and sat on the tarmac until we could go straight to NYC. Nobody got off the plane.

This is true. At my airline the requirement when fueling is that the main door is open and since passengers are onboard, half the flight attendants also must also be onboard. Good time to send one of the other flight attendants on a food run lol.

Monday night departure arriving shortly in ATL ...made it without a stop. Lower payload?

Cubsrule wrote:

n9801f wrote:

F27500 wrote:

So .. scheduling the wrong plane for the mission, then?

Yes, if true, disappointing. And I hope they deal with it in a way that sets a realistic expectation with customers.

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?

PHLCVGAMTK wrote:

n9801f wrote:

But customers do care about making their connections.

I've seen this deep concern for missed connections several times now in this thread. I have to ask, is there anywhere on Earth that's better for re-routing a plane full of misconnected passengers, than ATL at around 10:00 AM? People are not missing the last connecting flight of the evening, they're at the busiest connecting hub in the hemisphere. USCBP shouldn't be much of an issue, either, with KE35 presumably landed at 9:15 and nearly fully processed and nothing else until DL609 from CUN at 10:39. On a holiday peak travel day, I'd understand concerns about lack of capacity on later departure banks, but apart from that? It's a quiet time of the year for everyone not trying to get out of South Africa. Certainly it's not actually worse for Delta's PR than the alternative of leaving people behind in JNB with blocked empty seats on the airplane, not in these circumstances.

Passengers don’t like being reaccomodated on other flights. Sure there are plenty of options from ATL, but it’s also possible that the person on an international business class ticket ends up in a middle seat in economy since that is all that is available instead of the domestic first class seat that they paid for. It’s better than blocking seats and leaving people behind, but still bad nonetheless since the stress of rebooking is not enjoyable.

bchandl wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

n9801f wrote:

Yes, if true, disappointing. And I hope they deal with it in a way that sets a realistic expectation with customers.

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?

Is there an aircraft that can operate JNB-ATL year round with a full payload? Maybe the 345? We know the 77L cannot.

bchandl wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

n9801f wrote:

Yes, if true, disappointing. And I hope they deal with it in a way that sets a realistic expectation with customers.

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.

Cubsrule 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?

Is there an aircraft that can operate JNB-ATL year round with a full payload? Maybe the 345? We know the 77L cannot.

Fair question, but it is worth noting that Delta didn’t initially intend to operate JNB-ATL. They wanted to fly via CPT but didn’t get the traffic rights, which led to a less than optimal airplane/route combination

Cubsrule 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?

Is there an aircraft that can operate JNB-ATL year round with a full payload? Maybe the 345? We know the 77L cannot.

These "operational issues" are a temporary thing. They airline handles the payload restrictions as a matter of practice and the flight usually operates without a technical stop. But the urgency of needing to get a higher number of passengers to where they wanted to be before the travel restrictions took effect took precedence (as it should have). I congratulate Delta for waiving payload restrictions on DL 201 and getting the greatest number of people accommodated as possible.

Don't blame Omicron... blame the senseless travel restrictions enacted by so many governments worldwide. Travel restrictions only work if your country doesn't already have the variant.

RobertS975 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

bchandl wrote:

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?

Is there an aircraft that can operate JNB-ATL year round with a full payload? Maybe the 345? We know the 77L cannot.

These "operational issues" are a temporary thing. They airline handles the payload restrictions as a matter of practice and the flight usually operates without a technical stop. But the urgency of needing to get a higher number of passengers to where they wanted to be before the travel restrictions took effect took precedence (as it should have). I congratulate Delta for waiving payload restrictions on DL 201 and getting the greatest number of people accommodated as possible.

Don't blame Omicron... blame the senseless travel restrictions enacted by so many governments worldwide. Travel restrictions only work if your country doesn't already have the variant.

I agree on the travel restrictions part. By the time the WHO or SA government detected the variant, it was already in the EU, Britain and the US, in neighboring countries and probably in Asia too. There is literally no point to restricting travel at this point.

The only places I get it are Australia, NZ or some other island with smaller populations and a populace whose willing to lose their economic activity and freedoms to keep the virus to a minimum.

Same with COVID in March 2020, by the time it was detected in China for the first time it was already in Seattle, LA and SFO, Chicago and NYC. It was global.

We have a vax, the world's governments have said it works, so let it work. We're doing nothing with travel restrictions.

Back on topic - I am just pointing out that if a full compliment of Pax, Baggage and Cargo with or without 'typical' weather for the route means the aircraft cannot fly the route without a tech stop then by definition it's not the ideal aircraft for the route. That was my entire comment.

And the "well then what is? The A340-500? hahahaha" comments others made.... no obviously not, that's trollish. But Airbus does offer a ULR version of that exact plane that would not be expensive to introduce into the fleet that could make the trip, and be used on other routes to Aust and India.

bchandl wrote:

Back on topic - I am just pointing out that if a full compliment of Pax, Baggage and Cargo with or without 'typical' weather for the route means the aircraft cannot fly the route without a tech stop then by definition it's not the ideal aircraft for the route. That was my entire comment.

And the "well then what is? The A340-500? hahahaha" comments others made.... no obviously not, that's trollish. But Airbus does offer a ULR version of that exact plane that would not be expensive to introduce into the fleet that could make the trip, and be used on other routes to Aust and India.

No trolling here. I'm not sure there's an airplane on Earth that can always operate JNB-ATL full. If there's not, that means that every aircraft is "not the ideal aircraft for the route" by your definition. Is not serving the route better?

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.

MTOW is not limiting.

Cubsrule wrote:

bchandl wrote:

Back on topic - I am just pointing out that if a full compliment of Pax, Baggage and Cargo with or without 'typical' weather for the route means the aircraft cannot fly the route without a tech stop then by definition it's not the ideal aircraft for the route. That was my entire comment.

And the "well then what is? The A340-500? hahahaha" comments others made.... no obviously not, that's trollish. But Airbus does offer a ULR version of that exact plane that would not be expensive to introduce into the fleet that could make the trip, and be used on other routes to Aust and India.

No trolling here. I'm not sure there's an airplane on Earth that can always operate JNB-ATL full. If there's not, that means that every aircraft is "not the ideal aircraft for the route" by your definition. Is not serving the route better?

Or being stranded in SA because DL chooses to block seats so they can fly non-stop. Some people just can't see the forest for the trees.

bchandl wrote:

And the "well then what is? The A340-500? hahahaha" comments others made.... no obviously not, that's trollish. But Airbus does offer a ULR version of that exact plane that would not be expensive to introduce into the fleet that could make the trip, and be used on other routes to Aust and India.

Yet with this, you're broadcasting your own ignorance of the situation, while at the same time chastising others..... all while denouncing "trolling." Awesome.

Anyway, the A359ULR has the exact same MTOW as the two aircraft that made the stops in BOS/SJU: 280 tonnes.
Its only advantage over post-twist standard A359s is the ability to carry more fuel by volume (though not by weight).

Yet since fuel volume is not the problem on JNB-ATL, but the available payload to LIFT that fuel out of 5700ft while still carrying a decent pax/bag load, is--- then the A359ULR is utterly useless as a solution to the matter at issue here, because you'd still be trading payload for fuel weight, which is the "problem" that DL's already facing.

Cubsrule wrote:

No trolling here. I'm not sure there's an airplane on Earth that can always operate JNB-ATL full. If there's not, that means that every aircraft is "not the ideal aircraft for the route" by your definition. Is not serving the route better?

Funnily enough, one of the most competitive airframes on the route would indeed likely be the A345. Well, in payload anyway, due to its quad composition. Fuel/trip cost would be atrocious, as it always is with that aircraft.

But probably the single most competitive thing out there would be the A35K.

DL from my understanding considered the merits of a subfleet (at 316 tonnes, versus the currently available 319t, which would help even more!) but concluded that it would be of little advantage to the network outside of a select handful of routes, and seasonally at that. The decision to upgrade the formerly 268t A359s to 275t, as well as acquire 280t new deliveries, apparently quashed the idea of larger airframe acquisitions as well.

LAX772LR wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

No trolling here. I'm not sure there's an airplane on Earth that can always operate JNB-ATL full. If there's not, that means that every aircraft is "not the ideal aircraft for the route" by your definition. Is not serving the route better?

Funnily enough, one of the most competitive airframes on the route would indeed likely be the A345. Well, in payload anyway, due to its quad composition. Fuel/trip cost would be atrocious, as it always is with that aircraft.

But probably the single most competitive thing out there would be the A35K.

What about the A346?
It has about the same number of seats as the A359 judging by LH's fleet, it's probably cheap to acquire, it has commonality with the A330 fleet, and it seemed to do pretty well for both SAA and CX out of JNB.

If DL isn’t going to acquire a A35K for one route they certainly won’t consider an A346. The market will determine if DLs strategy is the correct one. If people stop booking JNB-ATL due to perceived unreliability the route would be cancelled.