Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Sat May 16, 2020 6:34 am

DL announced they will eliminate their 777 fleet by the end of the year. The A359 is a very capable plane and I do not see any problems with any flight in DL's network that the A359 cannot comfortable do including LAX-SYD, ATL-PVG or DET-PKX.

However, Westbound JNB-ATL is one of the longest and most challenging flights in the world due to the elevation and high temperatures at JNB. Can the A359 fly this route with any meaningful cargo. Would it be as capable as the 77L has been for DL on the same route?


https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/14/coronav ... -2020.html
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
johns624
Posts: 2723
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Sat May 16, 2020 3:40 pm

How much "meaningful" cargo does DL fly out of JNB?
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2982
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Sat May 16, 2020 8:21 pm

DL's latest A359s should be fine as long as they are fully rated at 280t. Not sure if it can match the 77L but obviously DL is happy with the projections.
 
gloom
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Sat May 16, 2020 9:09 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
Not sure if it can match the 77L but obviously DL is happy with the projections.


It can't. It all depends on day-to-day ops, since the weather will influence, however, I expect TOW of A359 to be at around 40 to 50t from 77L. Fuel difference will be much of it (around 35t?), but not all of it.

On the other hand, I think it could be perhaps even more profitable. If incomes go down by a few percent (say 1 digit number) due to cargo left behind, then much lower operating cost of 359 will increase profit.

Cheers,
Adam
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Sun May 17, 2020 1:14 am

On most days they should be able to leave JNB at 275t, give or take a few tons depending on temp up or down. They should be able to take a few tons on good days. They might even have to leave some pax behind on hot days. All in all the fuel savings are going to be drastic, and the operating cost is so much lower, any minor restrictions will be mitigated by the cost difference. You basically need an A346 to match a 77L out of Jo'Burg, so this is a testament to the Triple, but the 359 will do it fine, from ATL it can basically match the 77L minus a few tons.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4900
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Sun May 17, 2020 5:36 am

gloom wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
Not sure if it can match the 77L but obviously DL is happy with the projections.


It can't. It all depends on day-to-day ops, since the weather will influence, however, I expect TOW of A359 to be at around 40 to 50t from 77L. Fuel difference will be much of it (around 35t?), but not all of it.

On the other hand, I think it could be perhaps even more profitable. If incomes go down by a few percent (say 1 digit number) due to cargo left behind, then much lower operating cost of 359 will increase profit.

Cheers,
Adam

DL is building their fleet for commonality rather than uplift. To have a common widebody fleet is a cost savings, Which is probably why United has deferred their
A350 into the next 'century. sometime. Delta is cool with Rolls Royce Engines United is REAL cool with GE Engines. Hell! United should sell their deliveries to Delta and be done with the A350 all together.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14978
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Sun May 17, 2020 8:44 am

Last time looked at 777 loads out of JNB they were very ordinary, they would be limited by tyre speed. An A340-300 easily lifting more revenue payload than a 77W. As the A350-900 has much better runway performance compared to a 777 I would have expected it to be somewhat better than a 777 with payload capability.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Sun May 17, 2020 1:09 pm

zeke wrote:
Last time looked at 777 loads out of JNB they were very ordinary, they would be limited by tyre speed. An A340-300 easily lifting more revenue payload than a 77W. As the A350-900 has much better runway performance compared to a 777 I would have expected it to be somewhat better than a 777 with payload capability.

A few things at play here, the 77L for DL had Goodyear specialize tires to increase the tyre speed limit slightly. The only time we could say the 359 might proverbially “struggle” is for a few weeks in the winter. But the rest of the time I agree it will preform better.
 
T54A
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:47 am

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Sun May 17, 2020 7:12 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
DL's latest A359s should be fine as long as they are fully rated at 280t. Not sure if it can match the 77L but obviously DL is happy with the projections.


280t is meaningless out of JNB. An A359 will seldom see more than 270t off Rwy03L and 262t off Rwy21R
T6, Allouette 3, Oryx, King Air, B1900, B727, B744, A319, A342/3/6 A332/3 A359
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1728
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Sun May 17, 2020 7:36 pm

zeke wrote:
Last time looked at 777 loads out of JNB they were very ordinary, they would be limited by tyre speed. An A340-300 easily lifting more revenue payload than a 77W. As the A350-900 has much better runway performance compared to a 777 I would have expected it to be somewhat better than a 777 with payload capability.


DL uses the 77L, not the 77W. There is no need to comapre the 77W in this situation.

The DL 77L has tires rated to a higher speed. The A359 May certainly be adequate, but won’t perform as well as the 77L.
Whatever
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Sun May 17, 2020 8:09 pm

I agree, I don't think any reasonable assessment would conclude the A359 has the same payload capability of the 77L on a route like JNB-ATL. The question was can the A359 carry meaningful cargo on the route in addition to pax and bags? The fuel burn and operational benefits of the A359 are a given.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
gloom
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Sun May 17, 2020 9:22 pm

OK, one example, quite exemplary.
Delta departed at around 2100 LT. Today, METAR says 13C. That's more or less ISA+10 at 5500ft.
Assuming whole 4400m rwy 03L/21R is available.
Approximating 2/3 between ISA and ISA+15 (at 4500m length) from ACAPS gives around 272t MTOW (for 5500ft altitude).

Assume we have 16.5hr trip. It was so for 77L, since 350 is a fraction faster, it will probably be a ten minutes shorter, but it makes almost no impact (a ton difference). I'll take it as 8000nm still air distance (0.85Ma is almost exactly 500kts, plus climb/descend).
At 272t (8 tons less than max) and 8000nm, ACAPS says approx 24 tons. If we add ton from speed difference, that rounds to 25t, or 250pax+bags. No cargo at all.

Be advised this is an approximation, based on ACAPS.

Cheers,
Adam
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Sun May 17, 2020 9:43 pm

gloom wrote:
OK, one example, quite exemplary.
Delta departed at around 2100 LT. Today, METAR says 13C. That's more or less ISA+10 at 5500ft.
Assuming whole 4400m rwy 03L/21R is available.
Approximating 2/3 between ISA and ISA+15 (at 4500m length) from ACAPS gives around 272t MTOW (for 5500ft altitude).

Assume we have 16.5hr trip. It was so for 77L, since 350 is a fraction faster, it will probably be a ten minutes shorter, but it makes almost no impact (a ton difference). I'll take it as 8000nm still air distance (0.85Ma is almost exactly 500kts, plus climb/descend).
At 272t (8 tons less than max) and 8000nm, ACAPS says approx 24 tons. If we add ton from speed difference, that rounds to 25t, or 250pax+bags. No cargo at all.

Be advised this is an approximation, based on ACAPS.

Cheers,
Adam



So if I am interpreting your post correctly the 77L will, depending on conditions, fly JNB-ATL with full pax and bags but little to no cargo.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
Web500sjc
Posts: 855
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:23 am

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Mon May 18, 2020 2:05 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
gloom wrote:
OK, one example, quite exemplary.
Delta departed at around 2100 LT. Today, METAR says 13C. That's more or less ISA+10 at 5500ft.
Assuming whole 4400m rwy 03L/21R is available.
Approximating 2/3 between ISA and ISA+15 (at 4500m length) from ACAPS gives around 272t MTOW (for 5500ft altitude).

Assume we have 16.5hr trip. It was so for 77L, since 350 is a fraction faster, it will probably be a ten minutes shorter, but it makes almost no impact (a ton difference). I'll take it as 8000nm still air distance (0.85Ma is almost exactly 500kts, plus climb/descend).
At 272t (8 tons less than max) and 8000nm, ACAPS says approx 24 tons. If we add ton from speed difference, that rounds to 25t, or 250pax+bags. No cargo at all.

Be advised this is an approximation, based on ACAPS.

Cheers,
Adam



So if I am interpreting your post correctly the 77L will, depending on conditions, fly JNB-ATL with full pax and bags but little to no cargo.



Looks like a350 numbers. A 77L has a MTOW of 347T (metric). An A350 can have a MTOW of 280T. That calculation would have a 77L leaving 75T under a standard MTOW or an A350 Leaving 8T under max.
Boiler Up!
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Mon May 18, 2020 3:13 am

Web500sjc wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
gloom wrote:
OK, one example, quite exemplary.
Delta departed at around 2100 LT. Today, METAR says 13C. That's more or less ISA+10 at 5500ft.
Assuming whole 4400m rwy 03L/21R is available.
Approximating 2/3 between ISA and ISA+15 (at 4500m length) from ACAPS gives around 272t MTOW (for 5500ft altitude).

Assume we have 16.5hr trip. It was so for 77L, since 350 is a fraction faster, it will probably be a ten minutes shorter, but it makes almost no impact (a ton difference). I'll take it as 8000nm still air distance (0.85Ma is almost exactly 500kts, plus climb/descend).
At 272t (8 tons less than max) and 8000nm, ACAPS says approx 24 tons. If we add ton from speed difference, that rounds to 25t, or 250pax+bags. No cargo at all.

Be advised this is an approximation, based on ACAPS.

Cheers,
Adam



So if I am interpreting your post correctly the 77L will, depending on conditions, fly JNB-ATL with full pax and bags but little to no cargo.



Looks like a350 numbers. A 77L has a MTOW of 347T (metric). An A350 can have a MTOW of 280T. That calculation would have a 77L leaving 75T under a standard MTOW or an A350 Leaving 8T under max.




You are correct. The 77L MTOW is 347,000 kg. The A359 is 270,000-280,000 kg depending on variant.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... off_weight
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4900
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Mon May 18, 2020 5:08 am

ikolkyo wrote:
DL's latest A359s should be fine as long as they are fully rated at 280t. Not sure if it can match the 77L but obviously DL is happy with the projections.

In any case? Since Delta is bound and determined to go all in with the A350? They'll have to just adjust their cost projections TO the A350 regardless of what thev777's can do. It's irrelevant at this point isn't it? If they lose their shirts? we might have some speculation as to why? But? they haven't yet.
 
gloom
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Mon May 18, 2020 5:30 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
So if I am interpreting your post correctly the 77L will, depending on conditions, fly JNB-ATL with full pax and bags but little to no cargo.


Based on Boeing ACAPS, 77L would leave at the very same conditions with approx 325t TOW, and around (just below) 190t OEW+payload. Depending on OEW, I think most Anetters agree on 155t OEW, that would mean full board and a few cargo containers (34t payload, 30t pax and bags, plus up 5t cargo).
Of course, if board is not full, that means additional cargo.

Keep in mind both ACAPS take standard mission rules. Since there are more advanced techniques to avoid overfueling over long distances, I believe the real numbers for both will be higher by a few tons. Don't know how much more, but over 16hrs mission, I'd expect some 3-4tons. Sorry not to include that statement on approx for 359.

So, final expected numbers on this specific conditions:
359: approx 27t, 270pax+bags
77L: approx 38t, full board and 8t, or 270pax+bags+11t delta to 359

Numbers are approx based on ACAPS. In particular, bear in mind that we don't know if Delta ships (both 77L and 359) have received all the PIPs and changes to match ACAPS model.

Cheers,
Adam
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Mon May 18, 2020 5:56 am

gloom wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
So if I am interpreting your post correctly the 77L will, depending on conditions, fly JNB-ATL with full pax and bags but little to no cargo.


Based on Boeing ACAPS, 77L would leave at the very same conditions with approx 325t TOW, and around (just below) 190t OEW+payload. Depending on OEW, I think most Anetters agree on 155t OEW, that would mean full board and a few cargo containers (34t payload, 30t pax and bags, plus up 5t cargo).
Of course, if board is not full, that means additional cargo.

Keep in mind both ACAPS take standard mission rules. Since there are more advanced techniques to avoid overfueling over long distances, I believe the real numbers for both will be higher by a few tons. Don't know how much more, but over 16hrs mission, I'd expect some 3-4tons. Sorry not to include that statement on approx for 359.

So, final expected numbers on this specific conditions:
359: approx 27t, 270pax+bags
77L: approx 38t, full board and 8t, or 270pax+bags+11t delta to 359

Numbers are approx based on ACAPS. In particular, bear in mind that we don't know if Delta ships (both 77L and 359) have received all the PIPs and changes to match ACAPS model.

Cheers,
Adam



Thank you. Your numbers make sense to me. Anecdotally, a DL employee stated they fly quite a bit of cargo on the ATL- JNB route. Unsure about the JNB-ATL return in terms of cargo.

It appears DL is willing to forego much of the cargo opportunities of JNB-ATL to achieve fleet simplification and benefit from the operational efficiency of the A359. With a likely 20-25% fuel burn advantage over the 77L they likely come out substantially ahead, even without the benefit of additional cargo the 77L can carry.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
rjsampson
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:00 am

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Mon May 18, 2020 6:11 am

DylanHarvey wrote:
A few things at play here, the 77L for DL had Goodyear specialize tires to increase the tyre speed limit slightly. The only time we could say the 359 might proverbially “struggle” is for a few weeks in the winter. But the rest of the time I agree it will preform better.


That's interesting... I believe the Goodrich 777 tires are rated at a maximum speed of 204kts. Would a fully loaded 777L on a hot day.. ever really approach that speed before rotation from JNB?
"..your eyes will be forever turned skyward, for there.." yeah we know the DaVinci quote. Unfortunately, we're grounded :(
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14978
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Mon May 18, 2020 12:03 pm

rjsampson wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
A few things at play here, the 77L for DL had Goodyear specialize tires to increase the tyre speed limit slightly. The only time we could say the 359 might proverbially “struggle” is for a few weeks in the winter. But the rest of the time I agree it will preform better.


That's interesting... I believe the Goodrich 777 tires are rated at a maximum speed of 204kts. Would a fully loaded 777L on a hot day.. ever really approach that speed before rotation from JNB?


Yes is happens all the time, the 204 kts is ground speed, which would correspond to an indicated speed of around 170-180 kts.

The 77L also has less thrust compared to the 77W 110 klb vs 115 klb per side) for the same MTOW.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
johns624
Posts: 2723
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Mon May 18, 2020 12:20 pm

What some here don't take into consideration is that you don't have a fleet of planes just because they fly one route better.
Here's a thought. With the talk, before the virus took over, of DL expanding MIA due to the LATAM hookup, they could move the JNB to Miami and save over 400 miles. Just a thought from a layman...
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2982
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Mon May 18, 2020 1:28 pm

zeke wrote:
rjsampson wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
A few things at play here, the 77L for DL had Goodyear specialize tires to increase the tyre speed limit slightly. The only time we could say the 359 might proverbially “struggle” is for a few weeks in the winter. But the rest of the time I agree it will preform better.


That's interesting... I believe the Goodrich 777 tires are rated at a maximum speed of 204kts. Would a fully loaded 777L on a hot day.. ever really approach that speed before rotation from JNB?

The 77L also has less thrust compared to the 77W 110 klb vs 115 klb per side) for the same MTOW.


The 77L can be equipped the 115klb. It’s the same engine physically, it’s all software in terms of thrust.

Air India and maybe EK have opted for it. I believe the 77L becomes more volume limited than MTOW limited so the extra thrust doesn’t seem to be worthwhile.
 
User avatar
Web500sjc
Posts: 855
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:23 am

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Mon May 18, 2020 2:26 pm

johns624 wrote:
What some here don't take into consideration is that you don't have a fleet of planes just because they fly one route better.
Here's a thought. With the talk, before the virus took over, of DL expanding MIA due to the LATAM hookup, they could move the JNB to Miami and save over 400 miles. Just a thought from a layman...


Of course, you don't get a fleet of planes because they fly one route better, but you also need to have an airplane that can fly the routes you want to serve (See SQ and the A345/A350ULR, or QF and Project Sunrise) . Also “better” means different things depending on what your looking at; are you the only game in town or are you competing against everyone? Is the cargo essential or gravy? Are you expanding, replacing or downsizing? Depending on what situation your in, you can get different answers.

It will be years before DL considers routing JNB through MIA (Unless AA disappears). More likely is DL moving JNB to NYC (also 400 mi shorter) or via a west African stop.
Boiler Up!
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Mon May 18, 2020 3:25 pm

Does anyone have some figures about the actual payload numbers for this route using the B77L?
 
gloom
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Mon May 18, 2020 4:09 pm

AECM wrote:
Does anyone have some figures about the actual payload numbers for this route using the B77L?


You have not specified what actual payload is. Average? Some real life examples accompanied by weather conditions?

I also don't think it would be really revelant to this discussion. For a number of reasons.

First day-to-day it will change, together with pressure/wind/temperature. The difference could be 10+ tons, I think. Just ISA to ISA+15 there's 12 tons (if I remember correctly) difference for a given rwy length.

Second, we don't know business conditions, however I think they must be some sort of primary-backup. No one's really interested to wait unknown number of days to get it delivered. On extreme routes like that, it's easy to be really weather dependant. I think it's something like "if we don't manage to send it direct, it will travel other route". There's no benefit to send cargo direct in 5 days, when on one stop it can travel today or tomorrow.

Third, it's not really the thread to talk 77L. It's about 359, check title.

Last, but not least, those who know (DL employees) could probably be restricted in releasing that sort of data. We've seen some average data released, this is probably the best one can get.

So, if you want to know, feel free to ask on dedicated thread. However, I'd strongly suggest to be more precise what you want to learn.

Cheers,
Adam
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Mon May 18, 2020 8:51 pm

Web500sjc wrote:
johns624 wrote:
What some here don't take into consideration is that you don't have a fleet of planes just because they fly one route better.
Here's a thought. With the talk, before the virus took over, of DL expanding MIA due to the LATAM hookup, they could move the JNB to Miami and save over 400 miles. Just a thought from a layman...


Of course, you don't get a fleet of planes because they fly one route better, but you also need to have an airplane that can fly the routes you want to serve (See SQ and the A345/A350ULR, or QF and Project Sunrise) . Also “better” means different things depending on what your looking at; are you the only game in town or are you competing against everyone? Is the cargo essential or gravy? Are you expanding, replacing or downsizing? Depending on what situation your in, you can get different answers.

It will be years before DL considers routing JNB through MIA (Unless AA disappears). More likely is DL moving JNB to NYC (also 400 mi shorter) or via a west African stop.



I don't think DL will need to move the flight to NYC. From data Adam posted the A359 can fly the JNB-ATL route with full pax and bags. Yes, there may be a few days due to weather where some seats might need to be blocked, and yes, it appears to be limited opportunity for cargo. But as stated, the efficiency of the A359 likely outweigh those restrictions.

We already know an airline like CX flies the A359 and A351 westbound from IAD-HKG at a distance of 7053 nm. JNB-ATL is 7334 nm or only 281 nm farther. JNB is a challenge due to elevation and temps at times, but I do believe the 280T A359 can fly the mission. THere should be no need to move to NYC unkess there is a clear business case.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
Web500sjc
Posts: 855
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:23 am

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Tue May 19, 2020 1:33 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
Web500sjc wrote:
johns624 wrote:
What some here don't take into consideration is that you don't have a fleet of planes just because they fly one route better.
Here's a thought. With the talk, before the virus took over, of DL expanding MIA due to the LATAM hookup, they could move the JNB to Miami and save over 400 miles. Just a thought from a layman...


Of course, you don't get a fleet of planes because they fly one route better, but you also need to have an airplane that can fly the routes you want to serve (See SQ and the A345/A350ULR, or QF and Project Sunrise) . Also “better” means different things depending on what your looking at; are you the only game in town or are you competing against everyone? Is the cargo essential or gravy? Are you expanding, replacing or downsizing? Depending on what situation your in, you can get different answers.

It will be years before DL considers routing JNB through MIA (Unless AA disappears). More likely is DL moving JNB to NYC (also 400 mi shorter) or via a west African stop.



I don't think DL will need to move the flight to NYC. From data Adam posted the A359 can fly the JNB-ATL route with full pax and bags. Yes, there may be a few days due to weather where some seats might need to be blocked, and yes, it appears to be limited opportunity for cargo. But as stated, the efficiency of the A359 likely outweigh those restrictions.

We already know an airline like CX flies the A359 and A351 westbound from IAD-HKG at a distance of 7053 nm. JNB-ATL is 7334 nm or only 281 nm farther. JNB is a challenge due to elevation and temps at times, but I do believe the 280T A359 can fly the mission. THere should be no need to move to NYC unkess there is a clear business case.



I was more reacting to an idea that DL uses MIA as the jumping off point, if DL wanted to shorten up the flight, they would swap it to JFK not MIA. That being said, DL is committed to ATL, I think if they wanted more capacity they would make a second S.A. flight from ATL-CPT or JFK-JNB (maybe they will do JFK if SAA goes bust)
Boiler Up!
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7241
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Tue May 19, 2020 4:21 am

I’m sure Airbus would throw DL some Project Sunrise A35Ks if DL asked.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14978
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Tue May 19, 2020 10:35 am

gloom wrote:
AECM wrote:
Does anyone have some figures about the actual payload numbers for this route using the B77L?


You have not specified what actual payload is. Average? Some real life examples accompanied by weather conditions?

I also don't think it would be really revelant to this discussion. For a number of reasons.

First day-to-day it will change, together with pressure/wind/temperature. The difference could be 10+ tons, I think. Just ISA to ISA+15 there's 12 tons (if I remember correctly) difference for a given rwy length.

Second, we don't know business conditions, however I think they must be some sort of primary-backup. No one's really interested to wait unknown number of days to get it delivered. On extreme routes like that, it's easy to be really weather dependant. I think it's something like "if we don't manage to send it direct, it will travel other route". There's no benefit to send cargo direct in 5 days, when on one stop it can travel today or tomorrow.

Third, it's not really the thread to talk 77L. It's about 359, check title.

Last, but not least, those who know (DL employees) could probably be restricted in releasing that sort of data. We've seen some average data released, this is probably the best one can get.

So, if you want to know, feel free to ask on dedicated thread. However, I'd strongly suggest to be more precise what you want to learn.

Cheers,
Adam


I did a flight plan for today, the 77L would carry 32 tonnes of payload, and burn 126 tonnes of fuel for the sector. The A359 would carry 43 tonnes of payload, and burn 102 tonnes of fuel.

Neither aircraft could carry their maximum payload, both could carry full passenger, baggage, and some cargo.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1728
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Tue May 19, 2020 1:22 pm

zeke wrote:
gloom wrote:
AECM wrote:
Does anyone have some figures about the actual payload numbers for this route using the B77L?


You have not specified what actual payload is. Average? Some real life examples accompanied by weather conditions?

I also don't think it would be really revelant to this discussion. For a number of reasons.

First day-to-day it will change, together with pressure/wind/temperature. The difference could be 10+ tons, I think. Just ISA to ISA+15 there's 12 tons (if I remember correctly) difference for a given rwy length.

Second, we don't know business conditions, however I think they must be some sort of primary-backup. No one's really interested to wait unknown number of days to get it delivered. On extreme routes like that, it's easy to be really weather dependant. I think it's something like "if we don't manage to send it direct, it will travel other route". There's no benefit to send cargo direct in 5 days, when on one stop it can travel today or tomorrow.

Third, it's not really the thread to talk 77L. It's about 359, check title.

Last, but not least, those who know (DL employees) could probably be restricted in releasing that sort of data. We've seen some average data released, this is probably the best one can get.

So, if you want to know, feel free to ask on dedicated thread. However, I'd strongly suggest to be more precise what you want to learn.

Cheers,
Adam


I did a flight plan for today, the 77L would carry 32 tonnes of payload, and burn 126 tonnes of fuel for the sector. The A359 would carry 43 tonnes of payload, and burn 102 tonnes of fuel.

Neither aircraft could carry their maximum payload, both could carry full passenger, baggage, and some cargo.



Curious to know: Does/would the A350 have tire speed limitations out of JNB? If so, is there another, higher speed rated tire available on the market?

Thanks
Whatever
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19937
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Tue May 19, 2020 1:26 pm

FriscoHeavy wrote:
zeke wrote:
gloom wrote:

You have not specified what actual payload is. Average? Some real life examples accompanied by weather conditions?

I also don't think it would be really revelant to this discussion. For a number of reasons.

First day-to-day it will change, together with pressure/wind/temperature. The difference could be 10+ tons, I think. Just ISA to ISA+15 there's 12 tons (if I remember correctly) difference for a given rwy length.

Second, we don't know business conditions, however I think they must be some sort of primary-backup. No one's really interested to wait unknown number of days to get it delivered. On extreme routes like that, it's easy to be really weather dependant. I think it's something like "if we don't manage to send it direct, it will travel other route". There's no benefit to send cargo direct in 5 days, when on one stop it can travel today or tomorrow.

Third, it's not really the thread to talk 77L. It's about 359, check title.

Last, but not least, those who know (DL employees) could probably be restricted in releasing that sort of data. We've seen some average data released, this is probably the best one can get.

So, if you want to know, feel free to ask on dedicated thread. However, I'd strongly suggest to be more precise what you want to learn.

Cheers,
Adam


I did a flight plan for today, the 77L would carry 32 tonnes of payload, and burn 126 tonnes of fuel for the sector. The A359 would carry 43 tonnes of payload, and burn 102 tonnes of fuel.

Neither aircraft could carry their maximum payload, both could carry full passenger, baggage, and some cargo.



Curious to know: Does/would the A350 have tire speed limitations out of JNB? If so, is there another, higher speed rated tire available on the market?

Thanks


The tyre speed limitations on the A350-900 and A350-1000 are very similar to the 777. However, that's only partially relevant as the takeoff speed might be rather different for the same payload on a similar sector distance.

Some types and variants have a higher tyre speed limit than others. However, and with the caveat that I am speculating, significantly higher speed tyres, as in beyond a few percent, are more for the military market.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Tue May 19, 2020 3:02 pm

Starlionblue wrote:
FriscoHeavy wrote:
zeke wrote:

I did a flight plan for today, the 77L would carry 32 tonnes of payload, and burn 126 tonnes of fuel for the sector. The A359 would carry 43 tonnes of payload, and burn 102 tonnes of fuel.

Neither aircraft could carry their maximum payload, both could carry full passenger, baggage, and some cargo.



Curious to know: Does/would the A350 have tire speed limitations out of JNB? If so, is there another, higher speed rated tire available on the market?

Thanks


The tyre speed limitations on the A350-900 and A350-1000 are very similar to the 777. However, that's only partially relevant as the takeoff speed might be rather different for the same payload on a similar sector distance.

Some types and variants have a higher tyre speed limit than others. However, and with the caveat that I am speculating, significantly higher speed tyres, as in beyond a few percent, are more for the military market.

Also the A350 V-speeds are a lot lower because of the lower wing loading, which kinda mitigates the same tyre speeds.
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1728
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Tue May 19, 2020 4:00 pm

Some very good points on the last couple of posts. Thanks for sharing that information and knowledge.
Whatever
 
gloom
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Tue May 19, 2020 5:48 pm

zeke wrote:
I did a flight plan for today, the 77L would carry 32 tonnes of payload, and burn 126 tonnes of fuel for the sector. The A359 would carry 43 tonnes of payload, and burn 102 tonnes of fuel.


Zeke, would you be so kind to disclose TOW for both? I guess that would say a lot about how limited are planes, and would allow to evaluate ACAPS vs real planning software. I know they're supposed to be the same, but... Well... :P

Thanks,
Adam
 
User avatar
novarupta
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:32 am

Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Tue May 19, 2020 6:29 pm

gloom wrote:
zeke wrote:
I did a flight plan for today, the 77L would carry 32 tonnes of payload, and burn 126 tonnes of fuel for the sector. The A359 would carry 43 tonnes of payload, and burn 102 tonnes of fuel.


Zeke, would you be so kind to disclose TOW for both? I guess that would say a lot about how limited are planes, and would allow to evaluate ACAPS vs real planning software. I know they're supposed to be the same, but... Well... :P

Thanks,
Adam


Just get the OEW for both and add the weights Zeke gave you - then you’ll have your answer.
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Tue May 19, 2020 10:09 pm

zeke wrote:
gloom wrote:
AECM wrote:
Does anyone have some figures about the actual payload numbers for this route using the B77L?


You have not specified what actual payload is. Average? Some real life examples accompanied by weather conditions?

I also don't think it would be really revelant to this discussion. For a number of reasons.

First day-to-day it will change, together with pressure/wind/temperature. The difference could be 10+ tons, I think. Just ISA to ISA+15 there's 12 tons (if I remember correctly) difference for a given rwy length.

Second, we don't know business conditions, however I think they must be some sort of primary-backup. No one's really interested to wait unknown number of days to get it delivered. On extreme routes like that, it's easy to be really weather dependant. I think it's something like "if we don't manage to send it direct, it will travel other route". There's no benefit to send cargo direct in 5 days, when on one stop it can travel today or tomorrow.

Third, it's not really the thread to talk 77L. It's about 359, check title.

Last, but not least, those who know (DL employees) could probably be restricted in releasing that sort of data. We've seen some average data released, this is probably the best one can get.

So, if you want to know, feel free to ask on dedicated thread. However, I'd strongly suggest to be more precise what you want to learn.

Cheers,
Adam


I did a flight plan for today, the 77L would carry 32 tonnes of payload, and burn 126 tonnes of fuel for the sector. The A359 would carry 43 tonnes of payload, and burn 102 tonnes of fuel.

Neither aircraft could carry their maximum payload, both could carry full passenger, baggage, and some cargo.



With a conservative A359 ~130t DOW, 43t payload and 102t fuel burn, the flight would bust through MTOW once other fuel requirements are taken into account.

Do you not perhaps mean 34t payload for the A359?

As much as I trust your expertise on the aircraft, I am inclined to trust T54A's evaluation of the aircraft's performance at the airfield in question as well.

T54A wrote:
280t is meaningless out of JNB. An A359 will seldom see more than 270t off Rwy03L and 262t off Rwy21R


A 270t actual TOW would leave the A359 with roughly 30t payload. This still puts it ahead of the B77L in terms of efficiency by quite a bit if the B77L really only manages 32t out of JNB for DL.
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1728
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Tue May 19, 2020 11:15 pm

MoKa777 wrote:
zeke wrote:
gloom wrote:

You have not specified what actual payload is. Average? Some real life examples accompanied by weather conditions?

I also don't think it would be really revelant to this discussion. For a number of reasons.

First day-to-day it will change, together with pressure/wind/temperature. The difference could be 10+ tons, I think. Just ISA to ISA+15 there's 12 tons (if I remember correctly) difference for a given rwy length.

Second, we don't know business conditions, however I think they must be some sort of primary-backup. No one's really interested to wait unknown number of days to get it delivered. On extreme routes like that, it's easy to be really weather dependant. I think it's something like "if we don't manage to send it direct, it will travel other route". There's no benefit to send cargo direct in 5 days, when on one stop it can travel today or tomorrow.

Third, it's not really the thread to talk 77L. It's about 359, check title.

Last, but not least, those who know (DL employees) could probably be restricted in releasing that sort of data. We've seen some average data released, this is probably the best one can get.

So, if you want to know, feel free to ask on dedicated thread. However, I'd strongly suggest to be more precise what you want to learn.

Cheers,
Adam


I did a flight plan for today, the 77L would carry 32 tonnes of payload, and burn 126 tonnes of fuel for the sector. The A359 would carry 43 tonnes of payload, and burn 102 tonnes of fuel.

Neither aircraft could carry their maximum payload, both could carry full passenger, baggage, and some cargo.



With a conservative A359 ~130t DOW, 43t payload and 102t fuel burn, the flight would bust through MTOW once other fuel requirements are taken into account.

Do you not perhaps mean 34t payload for the A359?

As much as I trust your expertise on the aircraft, I am inclined to trust T54A's evaluation of the aircraft's performance at the airfield in question as well.

T54A wrote:
280t is meaningless out of JNB. An A359 will seldom see more than 270t off Rwy03L and 262t off Rwy21R


A 270t actual TOW would leave the A359 with roughly 30t payload. This still puts it ahead of the B77L in terms of efficiency by quite a bit if the B77L really only manages 32t out of JNB for DL.


Not that it matters at all now, but does anyone know how much of an improvement there would be if DL had selected 115,000 lbs of thrust instead of 110,000 lbs on the 77L?
Whatever
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Tue May 19, 2020 11:26 pm

One interesting point, is do DL require slightly higher fuel reserve? If it is around 8t reserve that can reduce payload a little bit. FOB will probably be 102-105 having 8t reserve, and a trip burn of 94-97ish assuming 6t/hr, so assuming a 137t DOW that puts them at ~240t t, so it seems like payload will be in the 30t range if 272-275t is the most they can get out of JNB. The 30t range will give them full pax and a tad bit of cargo, and a HUGE efficiency jump from the 77L. Me thinks this will work.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Wed May 20, 2020 4:18 am

MoKa777 wrote:
zeke wrote:
gloom wrote:

You have not specified what actual payload is. Average? Some real life examples accompanied by weather conditions?

I also don't think it would be really revelant to this discussion. For a number of reasons.

First day-to-day it will change, together with pressure/wind/temperature. The difference could be 10+ tons, I think. Just ISA to ISA+15 there's 12 tons (if I remember correctly) difference for a given rwy length.

Second, we don't know business conditions, however I think they must be some sort of primary-backup. No one's really interested to wait unknown number of days to get it delivered. On extreme routes like that, it's easy to be really weather dependant. I think it's something like "if we don't manage to send it direct, it will travel other route". There's no benefit to send cargo direct in 5 days, when on one stop it can travel today or tomorrow.

Third, it's not really the thread to talk 77L. It's about 359, check title.

Last, but not least, those who know (DL employees) could probably be restricted in releasing that sort of data. We've seen some average data released, this is probably the best one can get.

So, if you want to know, feel free to ask on dedicated thread. However, I'd strongly suggest to be more precise what you want to learn.

Cheers,
Adam


I did a flight plan for today, the 77L would carry 32 tonnes of payload, and burn 126 tonnes of fuel for the sector. The A359 would carry 43 tonnes of payload, and burn 102 tonnes of fuel.

Neither aircraft could carry their maximum payload, both could carry full passenger, baggage, and some cargo.



With a conservative A359 ~130t DOW, 43t payload and 102t fuel burn, the flight would bust through MTOW once other fuel requirements are taken into account.

Do you not perhaps mean 34t payload for the A359?

As much as I trust your expertise on the aircraft, I am inclined to trust T54A's evaluation of the aircraft's performance at the airfield in question as well.

T54A wrote:
280t is meaningless out of JNB. An A359 will seldom see more than 270t off Rwy03L and 262t off Rwy21R


A 270t actual TOW would leave the A359 with roughly 30t payload. This still puts it ahead of the B77L in terms of efficiency by quite a bit if the B77L really only manages 32t out of JNB for DL.



I agree with you. With a 270T TOW a 43T payload seems way too high. Also, while the A359 is much more efficient than the 77L, the 77L by reputation has the best payload range around. That is virtually its sole reason for existence. Assuming a max 270T TOW out of JNB the A359 should be around 30T max payload. The 77L can probably due a few more tons of payload, but it will burn 20-25 t more fuel.

It sounds like DL has a solid replacement on the JNB-ATL sector.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
gloom
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Wed May 20, 2020 5:16 am

novarupta wrote:
[
Just get the OEW for both and add the weights Zeke gave you - then you’ll have your answer.


See MoKa's answers. Numbers seem to be quite off - sure, weather could be real factor, but since TOW expected in these conditions maxed at around 270t, and OEW at ~136t consensus, math doesn't add up.

136+43 payload+102t fuel+reserves (assume just 5t) goes over 280t

Not accounting for high airfield restrictions.

I asked for TOW, because that is one of the ways to decompose other way round. And also see how much one needs to offload from MTOW for any of these (I expect 359 to perform much closer to MTOW than 77L).

Cheers,
Adam
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14978
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Wed May 20, 2020 9:48 am

gloom wrote:

See MoKa's answers. Numbers seem to be quite off - sure, weather could be real factor, but since TOW expected in these conditions maxed at around 270t, and OEW at ~136t consensus, math doesn't add up.

136+43 payload+102t fuel+reserves (assume just 5t) goes over 280t


This was my mistake in the words I used, the fuel figures were not trip fuels, they were dispatch fuel, which includes taxi and reserves, the A350 would have landed with around 10 tonnes of fuel on that plan, the flight time was less than 15 hours.

The “270 tonne limit” is not a runway limit, it is related to something in a standard takeoff path some distance from the airport.

There is also a video of a finnair A350-900 dispatch where their OEW which is below 136 tonnes is shown. There appears to be someone who goes about changing the Wiki entries for the A350, and then there are others who use wiki numbers are gospel.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Wed May 20, 2020 11:23 am

I found a picture in Twitter from a Finnair Captain flying one of their lastest A359 (OH-LWO) from DUB to HEL after a cargo flight. In the return leg to HEL the plane was empty (probably only two pilots on board) and in one of the pictures if we take into account the GW and FOB the OEW = 135,500 Kg.

Image

https://twitter.com/MikaHissa/status/1261202402562265089

Also the plane was flying at FL410 and with a speed of Mach 0.759 with resulted in a FF of 1960 + 1970 = 3930 Kg/H
 
T54A
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:47 am

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Wed May 20, 2020 1:05 pm

zeke wrote:
gloom wrote:

See MoKa's answers. Numbers seem to be quite off - sure, weather could be real factor, but since TOW expected in these conditions maxed at around 270t, and OEW at ~136t consensus, math doesn't add up.

136+43 payload+102t fuel+reserves (assume just 5t) goes over 280t


This was my mistake in the words I used, the fuel figures were not trip fuels, they were dispatch fuel, which includes taxi and reserves, the A350 would have landed with around 10 tonnes of fuel on that plan, the flight time was less than 15 hours.

The “270 tonne limit” is not a runway limit, it is related to something in a standard takeoff path some distance from the airport.

There is also a video of a finnair A350-900 dispatch where their OEW which is below 136 tonnes is shown. There appears to be someone who goes about changing the Wiki entries for the A350, and then there are others who use wiki numbers are gospel.


There was a cell tower and a billboard that were erroneously included in the obstacle data (03L). They were removed in December. Not sure if there is anything specific in the way now.
T6, Allouette 3, Oryx, King Air, B1900, B727, B744, A319, A342/3/6 A332/3 A359
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3510
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Wed May 20, 2020 1:26 pm

AECM wrote:
I found a picture in Twitter from a Finnair Captain flying one of their lastest A359 (OH-LWO) from DUB to HEL after a cargo flight. In the return leg to HEL the plane was empty (probably only two pilots on board) and in one of the pictures if we take into account the GW and FOB the OEW = 135,500 Kg.

Image

https://twitter.com/MikaHissa/status/1261202402562265089

Also the plane was flying at FL410 and with a speed of Mach 0.759 with resulted in a FF of 1960 + 1970 = 3930 Kg/H


Excellent find! I have book marked this for future reference because as Zeke said there is someone who keeps editing the wikipedia article.

Fred
Image
 
Sokes
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Wed May 20, 2020 3:56 pm

Why to take cargo on a 15 hour flight? Is there not enough cargo demand to run a cargo plane between a FedEx or UPS hub to South Africa with a fuel stop somewhere?
Atlanta Johannesburg: 7334 nm
Atlanta Dakar: 3777nm
Dakar Johannesburg: 3619 nm
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Wed May 20, 2020 4:02 pm

So I guess the consensus is the A359 can fly the mission with somewhere around 30T of payload. That would be full pax and bags and may be a bit of cargo. Fuel burn savings are roughly 20-25T better than the 77L although the 77L can probably carry several tons more payload.

Based on those numbers it makes sense to me in the current environment why DL would be comfortable retiring the small 77L fleet since they have an aircraft that fly all of their ULH missions.

Thanks for the posts. It kind of puts in perspective the goofy posts from several years ago claiming the A359 did not have the legs to do LAX-SYD for DL. That did not make sense then, it makes even less sense now.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1728
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Wed May 20, 2020 4:21 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
So I guess the consensus is the A359 can fly the mission with somewhere around 30T of payload. That would be full pax and bags and may be a bit of cargo. Fuel burn savings are roughly 20-25T better than the 77L although the 77L can probably carry several tons more payload.

Based on those numbers it makes sense to me in the current environment why DL would be comfortable retiring the small 77L fleet since they have an aircraft that fly all of their ULH missions.

Thanks for the posts. It kind of puts in perspective the goofy posts from several years ago claiming the A359 did not have the legs to do LAX-SYD for DL. That did not make sense then, it makes even less sense now.



It's more complicated than that. I'm sure DL will be able to make the A350 work on the LAX-SYD, JNB-ATL routes and so forth, but the prior posts were not goofy. There is a reason/are reasons why DL used the 77L on the routes up until this point. We do not know those reasons, but clearly the 77L was the better plane for the route while they were in the fleet. Now, this could be based on performance limitations of the A350, because maybe the 777s were paid off and cheaper to operate on said routes or some combination thereof that made the 77L the better suited choice for the routes.

Now, with it gone, this becomes a moot issue, but there were clearly reasons why DL didn't start using the A350 on these routes prior to this. This isn't to take anything away from the A350 because it's a fantastic aircraft, but every plane has pros and cons, limitations, etc.

Cheers
Whatever
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14978
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Wed May 20, 2020 5:55 pm

AECM wrote:
I found a picture in Twitter from a Finnair Captain flying one of their lastest A359 (OH-LWO) from DUB to HEL after a cargo flight. In the return leg to HEL the plane was empty (probably only two pilots on board) and in one of the pictures if we take into account the GW and FOB the OEW = 135,500 Kg.


That is DOW not OEW. You will find on other threads on a.net that the numerous posters are saying the OEW or DOW of Finnair A350s is 144 tonnes. There is a video on YouTube where they start a Finnair A350 flight at dispatch, and on the paperwork is the printed empty weight of around 134 tonnes.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
gloom
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Wed May 20, 2020 5:59 pm

zeke wrote:
The “270 tonne limit” is not a runway limit, it is related to something in a standard takeoff path some distance from the airport.


Info about fuel copied, thanks.

However, 270 tonne (or 272 from my approx) limit is straight from ACAPS. For following conditions I used:
Local temp: +13C (ACAPS says ISA is 3C at 6000ft, so we're at around ISA+10, somewhere two-thirds from ISA and ISA+15 in ACAPS)
Runway distance avail: 4500m
local altitude: 5500ft (again 3/4 between 4000 and 6000).
Sure, there are quite a lot of approximations, but 272t TOW as maximum at these conditions seems reasonable. ACAPS shows 4000ft, ISA+15 as not able to depart at 280t TOW from 4500m long runway. It's only a ton or two below, but below.

Cheers,
Adam
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14978
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Can the A359 Do JNB-ATL for DL With Meaningful Cargo?

Wed May 20, 2020 6:02 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Excellent find! I have book marked this for future reference because as Zeke said there is someone who keeps editing the wikipedia article.

Fred


Rumours are the changes are being made by an electrical engineer who lives around an 8 hour drive east of Vancouver. Take wiki entries with a grain of salt, contributions are made by volunteers, and the information may not be accurate.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AdamsA, Flaps, Okcflyer and 24 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