Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
jagraham
Posts: 1153
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: The odds that UA pick up the 77Ls from DL

Wed Sep 16, 2020 8:01 pm

DylanHarvey wrote:
jagraham wrote:
jfk777 wrote:
What use are some old 777LR to United ? They have 787-9 and 77W which can perform flights to Johannesburg and Sydney very well. Why would United even entertain such an idea ? United operates so many international flights to so many destinations they have a fleet capable.


The 789 and 77W can fly TO JNB just fine. The limitation is flying OUT of JNB. DL 77Ls have special tires for higher ground speeds. Presumably this could be done on UA 77Ws since the MTOW is similar, but the 77W has rotation limitations that the 77L does not. And a higher OEW. The 789 also has less payload. It should be noted that DL plans a similar change on their JNB service, with the A359s stopping in CPT on the way back, a stop that the 77L did not require. That change shows that payload range is not the only factor; if it was, DL would presumably kept the 77L fleet.

Of course this is all subordinate to whether or not UA can find a full plane worth of people to fly to and from JNB at more than giveaway rates. And what COVID limitations are in place.

The 77W is horrible from Johannesburg because it has pretty much the highest wing loading out of any plane flying right now. Atlanta is about an hour farther. The 359 can actually do it as zeke has pointed out.


With all due respect to Zeke, the 359 cannot do JNB to ATL nonstop except in ULR configuration. That would be too big of a payload hit. Which is why DL has inserted the CPT stop.

The A35J with the Sunrise weight can probably do JNB to ATL with a decent load, but that's another fleet type. And a type which until recently Airbus was loath to deeply discount. I would have expected DL to get A35Js for JNB, BOM, and maybe SYD, but DL has decided to take the payload hits and save the fuel and acquisition costs. Even before COVID made all international flying extremely suspect.

As was noted upthread, losing $25 million per day can't go on forever. The US3 will abandon international flying except for North America, LHR, TYO, and a couple of partner hubs each before going bankrupt. We have a while to wait before these fleet changes are necessary.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 437
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: The odds that UA pick up the 77Ls from DL

Wed Sep 16, 2020 8:04 pm

jagraham wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
jagraham wrote:

The 789 and 77W can fly TO JNB just fine. The limitation is flying OUT of JNB. DL 77Ls have special tires for higher ground speeds. Presumably this could be done on UA 77Ws since the MTOW is similar, but the 77W has rotation limitations that the 77L does not. And a higher OEW. The 789 also has less payload. It should be noted that DL plans a similar change on their JNB service, with the A359s stopping in CPT on the way back, a stop that the 77L did not require. That change shows that payload range is not the only factor; if it was, DL would presumably kept the 77L fleet.

Of course this is all subordinate to whether or not UA can find a full plane worth of people to fly to and from JNB at more than giveaway rates. And what COVID limitations are in place.

The 77W is horrible from Johannesburg because it has pretty much the highest wing loading out of any plane flying right now. Atlanta is about an hour farther. The 359 can actually do it as zeke has pointed out.


With all due respect to Zeke, the 359 cannot do JNB to ATL nonstop except in ULR configuration. That would be too big of a payload hit. Which is why DL has inserted the CPT stop.

The A35J with the Sunrise weight can probably do JNB to ATL with a decent load, but that's another fleet type. And a type which until recently Airbus was loath to deeply discount. I would have expected DL to get A35Js for JNB, BOM, and maybe SYD, but DL has decided to take the payload hits and save the fuel and acquisition costs. Even before COVID made all international flying extremely suspect.

As was noted upthread, losing $25 million per day can't go on forever. The US3 will abandon international flying except for North America, LHR, TYO, and a couple of partner hubs each before going bankrupt. We have a while to wait before these fleet changes are necessary.

Part of the reason was reserve being assumed at 5t. In Zeke's defense the plan he ran was when winds were good and the JNB-ATL segment was under 15hrs which doesn't need full fuel at all, and at 270t the 359 can do 14hrs with 35-40t of payload. The 359 can do everything besides JNB, to be fair the 789 doesn't have a hope in hell of doing JNB-ATLat 17hrs.
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2227
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

Re: The odds that UA pick up the 77Ls from DL

Wed Sep 16, 2020 8:25 pm

A trade? 16 UA 767-400ERs for 10 DL 777-200LRs?

Of all the UA wide bodies, the 767-400ER is the least likely to return, as the entire fleet hasn't begun Polaris configuration.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5673
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: The odds that UA pick up the 77Ls from DL

Wed Sep 16, 2020 8:30 pm

Every airline is parking planes and losing money by the barrel. They all have commitments on new planes that they are going to have a very hard time absorbing. While the 77Ls are quite new they are still yesterday’s technology and were never popular because they were less efficient than the 77W, unless you needed the range, which few did. The chance of any airline paying money to get any older generation planes at this point is zero. Even brand new 787s or A350s will be hard to unload, although it may be possible at a huge discount.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Antarius
Posts: 2971
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: The odds that UA pick up the 77Ls from DL

Wed Sep 16, 2020 8:48 pm

DylanHarvey wrote:
Antarius wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
Please provide the link for the HGW 78X.


What link? JFK didn't say UA is getting HGW 78Js, just that it would be ideal for them if and when it ever occurs.

It’s just been an ongoing thing starting from some 359 threads, everyone was talking about HGW 78X’s. Yet Boeing didn’t say anything. If you want a bigger 789, a 359 is perfect.


Unless you don't have any a350s. That's like saying if you need a smaller a350 a 787 is perfect, but if you don't operate 787s, you'd probably pick up a a339 as its a good fit.
Militant Centrist
Let's all just use some common sense
 
jagraham
Posts: 1153
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: The odds that UA pick up the 77Ls from DL

Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:35 pm

DylanHarvey wrote:
jagraham wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
The 77W is horrible from Johannesburg because it has pretty much the highest wing loading out of any plane flying right now. Atlanta is about an hour farther. The 359 can actually do it as zeke has pointed out.


With all due respect to Zeke, the 359 cannot do JNB to ATL nonstop except in ULR configuration. That would be too big of a payload hit. Which is why DL has inserted the CPT stop.

The A35J with the Sunrise weight can probably do JNB to ATL with a decent load, but that's another fleet type. And a type which until recently Airbus was loath to deeply discount. I would have expected DL to get A35Js for JNB, BOM, and maybe SYD, but DL has decided to take the payload hits and save the fuel and acquisition costs. Even before COVID made all international flying extremely suspect.

As was noted upthread, losing $25 million per day can't go on forever. The US3 will abandon international flying except for North America, LHR, TYO, and a couple of partner hubs each before going bankrupt. We have a while to wait before these fleet changes are necessary.

Part of the reason was reserve being assumed at 5t. In Zeke's defense the plan he ran was when winds were good and the JNB-ATL segment was under 15hrs which doesn't need full fuel at all, and at 270t the 359 can do 14hrs with 35-40t of payload. The 359 can do everything besides JNB, to be fair the 789 doesn't have a hope in hell of doing JNB-ATLat 17hrs.


A 280t A359 can fly 35t payload 7500 nm from an ISA, 0ft, 3000m runway, airport. From an ISA+15C, 6000 ft airport with a 3000 m runway, it is only good for 240t. In essence, ferry flight only. That's why DL added the CPT stop. And yes, the ULR can do something because its OEW is lighter, but not that much lighter.

The A35J does better. A 316t variant can fly 45t 7500 nm from the same ISA, 0ft, 3000m runway. But that ISA+15C, 6000 ft, 3000m runway limits it to 255t, again ferry range. Yes I am surprised, but that is the Airbus chart, Sec 3-3, p5 (the A359 is p4, the ISA, 0ft charts are p 1 and 2).

These are MTOW, at sea level, figures. Individual configurations will affect the result by a small amount, but the aircraft is flying at the limit of its performance. Whereas the 77L can fly the full 280 (approx) pax plus about 10t cargo nonstop. For about 45000 lbs of fuel. The 77L is a beast, but it has an appetite to match. And JNB and ADD are the only major airports with these limitations.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 437
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: The odds that UA pick up the 77Ls from DL

Wed Sep 16, 2020 10:01 pm

jagraham wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
jagraham wrote:

With all due respect to Zeke, the 359 cannot do JNB to ATL nonstop except in ULR configuration. That would be too big of a payload hit. Which is why DL has inserted the CPT stop.

The A35J with the Sunrise weight can probably do JNB to ATL with a decent load, but that's another fleet type. And a type which until recently Airbus was loath to deeply discount. I would have expected DL to get A35Js for JNB, BOM, and maybe SYD, but DL has decided to take the payload hits and save the fuel and acquisition costs. Even before COVID made all international flying extremely suspect.

As was noted upthread, losing $25 million per day can't go on forever. The US3 will abandon international flying except for North America, LHR, TYO, and a couple of partner hubs each before going bankrupt. We have a while to wait before these fleet changes are necessary.

Part of the reason was reserve being assumed at 5t. In Zeke's defense the plan he ran was when winds were good and the JNB-ATL segment was under 15hrs which doesn't need full fuel at all, and at 270t the 359 can do 14hrs with 35-40t of payload. The 359 can do everything besides JNB, to be fair the 789 doesn't have a hope in hell of doing JNB-ATLat 17hrs.


A 280t A359 can fly 35t payload 7500 nm from an ISA, 0ft, 3000m runway, airport. From an ISA+15C, 6000 ft airport with a 3000 m runway, it is only good for 240t. In essence, ferry flight only. That's why DL added the CPT stop. And yes, the ULR can do something because its OEW is lighter, but not that much lighter.

The A35J does better. A 316t variant can fly 45t 7500 nm from the same ISA, 0ft, 3000m runway. But that ISA+15C, 6000 ft, 3000m runway limits it to 255t, again ferry range. Yes I am surprised, but that is the Airbus chart, Sec 3-3, p5 (the A359 is p4, the ISA, 0ft charts are p 1 and 2).

These are MTOW, at sea level, figures. Individual configurations will affect the result by a small amount, but the aircraft is flying at the limit of its performance. Whereas the 77L can fly the full 280 (approx) pax plus about 10t cargo nonstop. For about 45000 lbs of fuel. The 77L is a beast, but it has an appetite to match. And JNB and ADD are the only major airports with these limitations.

How did you get 7500nm at 280t? The A359 DOW is close to 135-137t. You used 142t DOW, and the 35K is around 149-151. The 359 is rated 8100nm at 280t. The 359 at 280t with about 137t DOW can load full fuel and about 35t of payload, full usable fuel is lets just say 108t, give or take a few hundred KG's, it can load 35t at full fuel and 137t DOW. lets say 6t an hour and 9t of reserve, 99t at 6t/hr is about 16.5 on the dot, at 488kts or 0.85 thats 8000nm give or take.....at 142t you'll get 7500nm. But a 142t DOW is completely unrealistic. 135-137 is much closer to what many others have noted.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 437
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: The odds that UA pick up the 77Ls from DL

Wed Sep 16, 2020 10:02 pm

Antarius wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
Antarius wrote:

What link? JFK didn't say UA is getting HGW 78Js, just that it would be ideal for them if and when it ever occurs.

It’s just been an ongoing thing starting from some 359 threads, everyone was talking about HGW 78X’s. Yet Boeing didn’t say anything. If you want a bigger 789, a 359 is perfect.


Unless you don't have any a350s. That's like saying if you need a smaller a350 a 787 is perfect, but if you don't operate 787s, you'd probably pick up a a339 as its a good fit.

Don't get me wrong I think a HGW 78X would be a good idea to creep into the 77E replacement, but the 789 can do essentially what a 77E can do, I think the 77E has a higher max structural payload, but thats it. The 78X is targeted towards higher density 8-10hr routes, it can do 11-12hr routes as well, past that you want an 89 or any 350.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1153
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: The odds that UA pick up the 77Ls from DL

Wed Sep 16, 2020 10:16 pm

DylanHarvey wrote:
jagraham wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
Part of the reason was reserve being assumed at 5t. In Zeke's defense the plan he ran was when winds were good and the JNB-ATL segment was under 15hrs which doesn't need full fuel at all, and at 270t the 359 can do 14hrs with 35-40t of payload. The 359 can do everything besides JNB, to be fair the 789 doesn't have a hope in hell of doing JNB-ATLat 17hrs.


A 280t A359 can fly 35t payload 7500 nm from an ISA, 0ft, 3000m runway, airport. From an ISA+15C, 6000 ft airport with a 3000 m runway, it is only good for 240t. In essence, ferry flight only. That's why DL added the CPT stop. And yes, the ULR can do something because its OEW is lighter, but not that much lighter.

The A35J does better. A 316t variant can fly 45t 7500 nm from the same ISA, 0ft, 3000m runway. But that ISA+15C, 6000 ft, 3000m runway limits it to 255t, again ferry range. Yes I am surprised, but that is the Airbus chart, Sec 3-3, p5 (the A359 is p4, the ISA, 0ft charts are p 1 and 2).

These are MTOW, at sea level, figures. Individual configurations will affect the result by a small amount, but the aircraft is flying at the limit of its performance. Whereas the 77L can fly the full 280 (approx) pax plus about 10t cargo nonstop. For about 45000 lbs of fuel. The 77L is a beast, but it has an appetite to match. And JNB and ADD are the only major airports with these limitations.

How did you get 7500nm at 280t? The A359 DOW is close to 135-137t. You used 142t DOW, and the 35K is around 149-151. The 359 is rated 8100nm at 280t. The 359 at 280t with about 137t DOW can load full fuel and about 35t of payload, full usable fuel is lets just say 108t, give or take a few hundred KG's, it can load 35t at full fuel and 137t DOW. lets say 6t an hour and 9t of reserve, 99t at 6t/hr is about 16.5 on the dot, at 488kts or 0.85 thats 8000nm give or take.....at 142t you'll get 7500nm. But a 142t DOW is completely unrealistic. 135-137 is much closer to what many others have noted.


7500 nm is the flight distance JNB to ATL. Take the 7500 nm line vertically to the profile line, then horizontally to the left side, and that's the available payload. Airbus charts start at 0 payload, so typical DOW is built in.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1153
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: The odds that UA pick up the 77Ls from DL

Wed Sep 16, 2020 10:20 pm

DylanHarvey wrote:
jagraham wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
Part of the reason was reserve being assumed at 5t. In Zeke's defense the plan he ran was when winds were good and the JNB-ATL segment was under 15hrs which doesn't need full fuel at all, and at 270t the 359 can do 14hrs with 35-40t of payload. The 359 can do everything besides JNB, to be fair the 789 doesn't have a hope in hell of doing JNB-ATLat 17hrs.


A 280t A359 can fly 35t payload 7500 nm from an ISA, 0ft, 3000m runway, airport. From an ISA+15C, 6000 ft airport with a 3000 m runway, it is only good for 240t. In essence, ferry flight only. That's why DL added the CPT stop. And yes, the ULR can do something because its OEW is lighter, but not that much lighter.

The A35J does better. A 316t variant can fly 45t 7500 nm from the same ISA, 0ft, 3000m runway. But that ISA+15C, 6000 ft, 3000m runway limits it to 255t, again ferry range. Yes I am surprised, but that is the Airbus chart, Sec 3-3, p5 (the A359 is p4, the ISA, 0ft charts are p 1 and 2).

These are MTOW, at sea level, figures. Individual configurations will affect the result by a small amount, but the aircraft is flying at the limit of its performance. Whereas the 77L can fly the full 280 (approx) pax plus about 10t cargo nonstop. For about 45000 lbs of fuel. The 77L is a beast, but it has an appetite to match. And JNB and ADD are the only major airports with these limitations.

How did you get 7500nm at 280t? The A359 DOW is close to 135-137t. You used 142t DOW, and the 35K is around 149-151. The 359 is rated 8100nm at 280t. The 359 at 280t with about 137t DOW can load full fuel and about 35t of payload, full usable fuel is lets just say 108t, give or take a few hundred KG's, it can load 35t at full fuel and 137t DOW. lets say 6t an hour and 9t of reserve, 99t at 6t/hr is about 16.5 on the dot, at 488kts or 0.85 thats 8000nm give or take.....at 142t you'll get 7500nm. But a 142t DOW is completely unrealistic. 135-137 is much closer to what many others have noted.


In any case, both the A359 and A35J have good payload at 7500 nm. From a sea level airport at ISA temp and 3000 m runway. It's the combination of the temperature and the altitude that sucks away all the payload. Whether you have 135t or 142t DOW (and again, DOW is built into the Airbus charts), there is not much payload left if you're flying 7500 nm from a 6000 ft airport that's at ISA+15.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14171
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: The odds that UA pick up the 77Ls from DL

Wed Sep 16, 2020 10:32 pm

flyfresno wrote:
How about a swap of UA's 767-400s for DL's 77Ls? While we are throwing out moderately far fetched ideas...


Throw in DL's 73Gs and in return DL has to also take on UA's A350 orders.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2753
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

Re: The odds that UA pick up the 77Ls from DL

Wed Sep 16, 2020 10:42 pm

cityshuttle wrote:
Didn’t we have such suggestion a while ago, where someone mentioned that AA could swap A330 with DL B777 since both wanna get rid of the subfleet ?

So DL would receive additional Airbus and AA would gain extra Boeing and they could harmonize their fleets ...


That actually sounds more plausible than UA taking DL's 77L's :)
 
N965UW
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 11:31 pm

Re: The odds that UA pick up the 77Ls from DL

Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:56 pm

STT757 wrote:
flyfresno wrote:
How about a swap of UA's 767-400s for DL's 77Ls? While we are throwing out moderately far fetched ideas...


Throw in DL's 73Gs and in return DL has to also take on UA's A350 orders.


Also give UA's PW 752s to DL while we're at it
You can always go around
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 437
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: The odds that UA pick up the 77Ls from DL

Thu Sep 17, 2020 12:14 am

jagraham wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
jagraham wrote:

A 280t A359 can fly 35t payload 7500 nm from an ISA, 0ft, 3000m runway, airport. From an ISA+15C, 6000 ft airport with a 3000 m runway, it is only good for 240t. In essence, ferry flight only. That's why DL added the CPT stop. And yes, the ULR can do something because its OEW is lighter, but not that much lighter.

The A35J does better. A 316t variant can fly 45t 7500 nm from the same ISA, 0ft, 3000m runway. But that ISA+15C, 6000 ft, 3000m runway limits it to 255t, again ferry range. Yes I am surprised, but that is the Airbus chart, Sec 3-3, p5 (the A359 is p4, the ISA, 0ft charts are p 1 and 2).

These are MTOW, at sea level, figures. Individual configurations will affect the result by a small amount, but the aircraft is flying at the limit of its performance. Whereas the 77L can fly the full 280 (approx) pax plus about 10t cargo nonstop. For about 45000 lbs of fuel. The 77L is a beast, but it has an appetite to match. And JNB and ADD are the only major airports with these limitations.

How did you get 7500nm at 280t? The A359 DOW is close to 135-137t. You used 142t DOW, and the 35K is around 149-151. The 359 is rated 8100nm at 280t. The 359 at 280t with about 137t DOW can load full fuel and about 35t of payload, full usable fuel is lets just say 108t, give or take a few hundred KG's, it can load 35t at full fuel and 137t DOW. lets say 6t an hour and 9t of reserve, 99t at 6t/hr is about 16.5 on the dot, at 488kts or 0.85 thats 8000nm give or take.....at 142t you'll get 7500nm. But a 142t DOW is completely unrealistic. 135-137 is much closer to what many others have noted.


7500 nm is the flight distance JNB to ATL. Take the 7500 nm line vertically to the profile line, then horizontally to the left side, and that's the available payload. Airbus charts start at 0 payload, so typical DOW is built in.

I know, the airbus chart is at 142.5t DOW, if you ask anyone who flies the 359 you'll see its way under 142.5, and way under 140 for that matter. DL newest 359 is at 135t, Finnair;s newest was at 134.5 which there is even a picture of in the cockpit so yeah.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 437
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: The odds that UA pick up the 77Ls from DL

Thu Sep 17, 2020 12:16 am

jagraham wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
jagraham wrote:

A 280t A359 can fly 35t payload 7500 nm from an ISA, 0ft, 3000m runway, airport. From an ISA+15C, 6000 ft airport with a 3000 m runway, it is only good for 240t. In essence, ferry flight only. That's why DL added the CPT stop. And yes, the ULR can do something because its OEW is lighter, but not that much lighter.

The A35J does better. A 316t variant can fly 45t 7500 nm from the same ISA, 0ft, 3000m runway. But that ISA+15C, 6000 ft, 3000m runway limits it to 255t, again ferry range. Yes I am surprised, but that is the Airbus chart, Sec 3-3, p5 (the A359 is p4, the ISA, 0ft charts are p 1 and 2).

These are MTOW, at sea level, figures. Individual configurations will affect the result by a small amount, but the aircraft is flying at the limit of its performance. Whereas the 77L can fly the full 280 (approx) pax plus about 10t cargo nonstop. For about 45000 lbs of fuel. The 77L is a beast, but it has an appetite to match. And JNB and ADD are the only major airports with these limitations.

How did you get 7500nm at 280t? The A359 DOW is close to 135-137t. You used 142t DOW, and the 35K is around 149-151. The 359 is rated 8100nm at 280t. The 359 at 280t with about 137t DOW can load full fuel and about 35t of payload, full usable fuel is lets just say 108t, give or take a few hundred KG's, it can load 35t at full fuel and 137t DOW. lets say 6t an hour and 9t of reserve, 99t at 6t/hr is about 16.5 on the dot, at 488kts or 0.85 thats 8000nm give or take.....at 142t you'll get 7500nm. But a 142t DOW is completely unrealistic. 135-137 is much closer to what many others have noted.


In any case, both the A359 and A35J have good payload at 7500 nm. From a sea level airport at ISA temp and 3000 m runway. It's the combination of the temperature and the altitude that sucks away all the payload. Whether you have 135t or 142t DOW (and again, DOW is built into the Airbus charts), there is not much payload left if you're flying 7500 nm from a 6000 ft airport that's at ISA+15.

Yeah exactly, the 77L is a different behemoth in terms of payload, the 359 is equal to it until about 6000nm, then everything starts dropping off. The 77L is almost never at MTOW, which helps because its almost 20t lighter than the 77W in most configurations, (150-155t) and basically the same MTOW and burns less fuel so its almost impossible to payload restrict a 77L unless you give it 6000ft of altitude or a super hot day.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 437
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: The odds that UA pick up the 77Ls from DL

Thu Sep 17, 2020 12:19 am

jagraham wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
jagraham wrote:

With all due respect to Zeke, the 359 cannot do JNB to ATL nonstop except in ULR configuration. That would be too big of a payload hit. Which is why DL has inserted the CPT stop.

The A35J with the Sunrise weight can probably do JNB to ATL with a decent load, but that's another fleet type. And a type which until recently Airbus was loath to deeply discount. I would have expected DL to get A35Js for JNB, BOM, and maybe SYD, but DL has decided to take the payload hits and save the fuel and acquisition costs. Even before COVID made all international flying extremely suspect.

As was noted upthread, losing $25 million per day can't go on forever. The US3 will abandon international flying except for North America, LHR, TYO, and a couple of partner hubs each before going bankrupt. We have a while to wait before these fleet changes are necessary.

Part of the reason was reserve being assumed at 5t. In Zeke's defense the plan he ran was when winds were good and the JNB-ATL segment was under 15hrs which doesn't need full fuel at all, and at 270t the 359 can do 14hrs with 35-40t of payload. The 359 can do everything besides JNB, to be fair the 789 doesn't have a hope in hell of doing JNB-ATLat 17hrs.


A 280t A359 can fly 35t payload 7500 nm from an ISA, 0ft, 3000m runway, airport. From an ISA+15C, 6000 ft airport with a 3000 m runway, it is only good for 240t. In essence, ferry flight only. That's why DL added the CPT stop. And yes, the ULR can do something because its OEW is lighter, but not that much lighter.

The A35J does better. A 316t variant can fly 45t 7500 nm from the same ISA, 0ft, 3000m runway. But that ISA+15C, 6000 ft, 3000m runway limits it to 255t, again ferry range. Yes I am surprised, but that is the Airbus chart, Sec 3-3, p5 (the A359 is p4, the ISA, 0ft charts are p 1 and 2).

These are MTOW, at sea level, figures. Individual configurations will affect the result by a small amount, but the aircraft is flying at the limit of its performance. Whereas the 77L can fly the full 280 (approx) pax plus about 10t cargo nonstop. For about 45000 lbs of fuel. The 77L is a beast, but it has an appetite to match. And JNB and ADD are the only major airports with these limitations.

Also the runways at JNB are around 4400m, and ADD is over 4000m IIRC, so the only extreme case for the 359 is UIO, and BOG, as those are 8000+ which is tough for any twin. At 4400m the 359 can get closer to 275t.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15555
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: The odds that UA pick up the 77Ls from DL

Thu Sep 17, 2020 1:50 am

Pinto wrote:
Besides the few spares they would need and reconfiguration I don't think there would be many expenses. The 77L and 77W use the same engine IIRC and they shouldn't have to train pilots as it is the same type rating


All the expenses I listed are real, a new interior can be a $20 million dollar exercise. Maintenance wise they would need to do a initial larger check to bring the aircraft inline with UA system of maintenance. The manuals and limits are different, pilot training would be required, it might be as simple as a CBT course, however it still needs to be created, approved, and administered. It is not as simple as painting a new livery on it, parking it at the gate and say off you go.

I just don’t see them going for it, there is a lot of downtime required before they would get a return, and then they have excess wide body capacity already.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: The odds that UA pick up the 77Ls from DL

Thu Sep 17, 2020 2:30 am

STT757 wrote:
flyfresno wrote:
How about a swap of UA's 767-400s for DL's 77Ls? While we are throwing out moderately far fetched ideas...


Throw in DL's 73Gs and in return DL has to also take on UA's A350 orders.


DL takes our A350 order and exchange it for early A321 slots.
 
Lootess
Posts: 544
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 6:15 am

Re: The odds that UA pick up the 77Ls from DL

Thu Sep 17, 2020 2:47 am

Initially when Delta made the 777 retirement announcement I was thinking Delta would return as JFK-JNB on the A359 since it can do it non-stop, and that South African would be out of the market anyway so it would be for the taking. But ATL-JNB was always a strong performer including the belly, and it would still have the monopoly. I'm sure they did the math down in Atlanta in the wake of taking millions of dollars of losses for awhile, it's just better to not go with an ULR config. tag CPT on the A359 and take the weight hit.

It's possible the A35J comes into Delta's favor over time after all this passes, it's not like they will be finishing that LATAM A350 order anytime soon. Regardless I'm happy Kirby and company have started EWR-JNB and also found some exotic routes for the 787 in this environment, they don't need anymore planes currently, if anything survival is pinned on making good use of your current assets, or stuff that was already on the books and getting delivered now.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 437
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: The odds that UA pick up the 77Ls from DL

Thu Sep 17, 2020 3:18 am

Lootess wrote:
Initially when Delta made the 777 retirement announcement I was thinking Delta would return as JFK-JNB on the A359 since it can do it non-stop, and that South African would be out of the market anyway so it would be for the taking. But ATL-JNB was always a strong performer including the belly, and it would still have the monopoly. I'm sure they did the math down in Atlanta in the wake of taking millions of dollars of losses for awhile, it's just better to not go with an ULR config. tag CPT on the A359 and take the weight hit.

It's possible the A35J comes into Delta's favor over time after all this passes, it's not like they will be finishing that LATAM A350 order anytime soon. Regardless I'm happy Kirby and company have started EWR-JNB and also found some exotic routes for the 787 in this environment, they don't need anymore planes currently, if anything survival is pinned on making good use of your current assets, or stuff that was already on the books and getting delivered now.

The 359 doesn't need ULR config for the route, it can do around 240pax or a little more and some cargo. JNB-ATL averaged around 32-35t of payload, that could often drop below 30 because the 77L was marginal on the route, at 275t the 359 could get around 30t of payload, but it takes an almost perfect(below 15 degrees Celsius and a hefty headwind. On a normal day the weight becomes 270t or under, thats where the payload advantage swings to the 77L because it just has more empty weight to work with. DL will not take a weight hit on CPT, its sea level and its a bit shorter than JNB. DL's 280t 359's are spec'd at around 135t DOW, also remember those have new shark lets which are about a 2% fuel burn advantage. They will consistently be able to get 35t payload plus, which guarantees pax_bags, and a few metric tons of cargo, also the winds are inconsistent, ive seen JNB-ATL go under 15hrs on a few days which brings payload close to 45t.
The 77L is in another stratosphere in terms of payload range, it can almost do 16hrs at MZFW, for reference the 359 is roughly 13-13.5.
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2743
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: The odds that UA pick up the 77Ls from DL

Thu Sep 17, 2020 1:11 pm

codc10 wrote:
Considering how carefully the company is working to manage this figure, I assume a numbers-oriented CEO like Kirby would reflexively know the company's up-to-the-minute status in this regard. It's also within guidance.


The Hub and Kirby drink from the same well when it comes to those numbers. I can think of reasons why Kirby would want things to look better in the public sphere, but as I said, I am good to leave it at that. Even a loss of half what he quotes, on the ongoing basis it has been and will be would be devastating. An operation their size with the projected earnings for the next year will not be able to avoid structural changes. Merger would be the thing I would be least likely to wager on, but mainly because everyone else is in as bad, if not worse, shape.

codc10 wrote:
I'm not celebrating anything.


I believe you. And I do not think your opinion is substantially different to mine WRT this topic.

Admittedly, this would have been a fantastic opportunity as recently as two years ago —the 77Ls could have worked great for things like SFO-BLR/DEL— but that train has sailed.


codc10 wrote:
The points you make about the cost of adding the 77L to the OpSpecs, training, manual updates, adding a simulator, reconfiguration of aircraft, etc. are all reasonable and valid. I have to believe the entire fleet, sold to one operator in a package deal, might approach the critical mass for a company like IAI to develop a 77L P2F STC.


I wondered about that. The 77L is fairly common to the 77W and the mods IAI are doing could be fairly easily ported over to the 77L. In fact, there would likely be less, if anything, to actually do, given that some of the work involved is in making the 77Ws MLG trucks more like the 77L/F's.

I expect that if there were someone to jump into that particular deep end first —e.g. DL selling their 77Ls to IAI or a leaseholder for that purpose— it is likely that most remaining operators would follow. Nobody really has large amounts of 77Ls, but those that do have them rarely use them to full capability, and their cost difference related to 789s & 359s is becoming more pronounced.

The freight/cargo market, OTOH, might welcome a less expensive version of the 77F.


codc10 wrote:
Because a PIP'ed 789 will likely be able to do 97% of what the 77L can at ~20% lower cost, I would say it's a non-starter for United in this environment


And that is before we get into what UA is to do about the —eventual— incoming 359s. Even if they were to push those out to 2029, that is still well inside of the expected lifetime for any used 77Ls they would have purchased and fitted out.

Worse financial decisions have been made, but this would be particularly difficult to defend.


zeke wrote:

All the expenses I listed are real, a new interior can be a $20 million dollar exercise. Maintenance wise they would need to do a initial larger check to bring the aircraft inline with UA system of maintenance. The manuals and limits are different, pilot training would be required, it might be as simple as a CBT course, however it still needs to be created, approved, and administered. It is not as simple as painting a new livery on it, parking it at the gate and say off you go.


And WRT MX, it is certainly possible that UA could actually have to come up with a new program for these A/C. It would not need to vary much to be a hassle.


strfyr51 wrote:
keep in mind A*net is not a business site, It's a site for enthusiasts. They neither Know nor do they Care about the Business aspect of the Airline. That's why there are Magazines like Airline Business , Aviation Week, and Air Transport World. They speak in Business language. This is a what if?, A how about this? and a whataya think of this? kind of site for armchair CEO's because on this site? Everybody is an expert! And it's no harm no foul.




Oh, I get all that. The OP asked a question. And while it is a little out there, I do not consider it to be a stupid or ridiculous idea.

But the biggest part of the thought exercise here is centered around feasibility. And in this case, that boils down to cash and/or financing behind implementation. There really were not any other primary objections. I have zero doubt UAL know how to work a 777...

strfyr51 wrote:
I know a lot of Airline Guys to visit this site on midnights when the work is slow and you'd better stay awake. And? It provided conversation and Disagreement enough to keep our blood flowing until the morning operation started. between 0230-0400. and for that? I will always be a big fan of A*Net.


I would argue that this thread did just that. . .
"Nous ne sommes pas infectés. Il n'y a pas d'infection ici..."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 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