Moderators: richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

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

Wed May 20, 2020 6:14 pm

FriscoHeavy wrote:
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



Yes, I agree. I was specifically referencing the claim made that because DL A359 were not the 280T MTOW variant it did not have the legs to fly LAX-SYD. That is clearly not the case.

I am sure DL had many good reasons why they preferred the 77L on certain routes, greater payload capability in ULH being at least one possible factor. I feel like based on your input as well as others the A359 can fly the JNB-ATL mission which addresses the question in the OP and at least one reason why DL is able to retire their 777 fleet.
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
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Wed May 20, 2020 6:35 pm

gloom wrote:
However, 270 tonne (or 272 from my approx) limit is straight from ACAPS.


The numbers in ACAPS are there for airport planning, not aircraft performance. There is a number of techniques that a performance engineer can use do improve the numbers. I’m not going into exactly what they are as that is something that give one airline commercial advantage over another.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

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

Wed May 20, 2020 10:19 pm

FriscoHeavy wrote:
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



There is a rumor in the DL eliminating the 777 thread that the ATL return flight from JNB would be routed through CPT. Based on information provided in this thread that appears to be unnecessary based on the real world performance of the A359. Again, as you indicated, DL likely has very good reasons for why they deploy their aircraft as they do, but the A359 does seem to be capable of the mission.

Regards.
Last edited by ElroyJetson on Wed May 20, 2020 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Wed May 20, 2020 10:21 pm

FriscoHeavy wrote:
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.


There is nothing to support the statement “clearly the 77L was the better plane for the route while they were in the fleet”. They were being used as they didn’t have anything else fulfill the role. If they were the best choice they simply would be retained.

With sufficient A350s coming online they have a choice as to equipment, the reason why the A350 wasn’t being used on the route earlier is they probably the A350 could earn more money with the new product on other routes, the yields are better elsewhere. The A350 also has a slightly higher seating capacity (306 vs 288 in the DL configuration).

There has been nothing presented to show DL carried a lot of cargo out of JNB. The whole premise about carrying a meaningful cargo payload started off without a factual basis.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

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

Wed May 20, 2020 10:34 pm

zeke wrote:
FriscoHeavy wrote:
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.


There is nothing to support the statement “clearly the 77L was the better plane for the route while they were in the fleet”. They were being used as they didn’t have anything else fulfill the role. If they were the best choice they simply would be retained.

With sufficient A350s coming online they have a choice as to equipment, the reason why the A350 wasn’t being used on the route earlier is they probably the A350 could earn more money with the new product on other routes, the yields are better elsewhere. The A350 also has a slightly higher seating capacity (306 vs 288 in the DL configuration).

There has been nothing presented to show DL carried a lot of cargo out of JNB. The whole premise about carrying a meaningful cargo payload started off without a factual basis.



In post 419 of the DL eliminating the 777 thread the following was stated by a DL employee.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1446213&start=400



Cant speak on LAX-SYD but ATL-JNB carried anything from car manufacturing parts to fresh produce.

Time sensitive product generally, fresh fruit/veg, organs, critical manufacturing equipment that can cause stoppage in the manufacturing line.

Uhh don't know could range from contracts, price(or maybe direct flights?).

The issue isn't can it fit in an A350, the issue re ATL-JNB-ATL is the hot and high conditions of JNB limiting MTOW which restricts how much cargo -read weight- can be carried which affects the total revenue on a flight.

Williams



As I stated, the JNB-ATL return is unknown regarding freight volume, but if significant freight is going in one direction you can probably safely assume some freight is going back on the return.

regards,
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
 
moyangmm
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

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

Wed May 20, 2020 11:10 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.

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


If A359 carries more than 77L, why would DL need to add a fuel stop at CPT when returning to ATL from JNB, using A359 but not 77L?

https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-cap ... rbus-a350/
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Wed May 20, 2020 11:16 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
As I stated, the JNB-ATL return is unknown regarding freight volume, but if significant freight is going in one direction you can probably safely assume some freight is going back on the return.


Actually what you said in the OP was “ Can the A359 fly this route with any meaningful cargo.

That statement talks about cargo ATL- JNB, your thread started off saying cargo FROM JNB.

There would be no restriction with the A350 out of ATL and should be able to carry 43 tonnes of payload.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Wed May 20, 2020 11:27 pm

moyangmm wrote:
If A359 carries more than 77L, why would DL need to add a fuel stop at CPT when returning to ATL from JNB, using A359 but not 77L?

https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-cap ... rbus-a350/


No idea, maybe they don’t have the demand to fill the extra capacity of A350 out JNB and adding CPT is more beneficial. When we operated from CPT there was more demand for cargo from there, there are many carries operating out of JNB and less from CPT.

CPT also has good seasonal northern hemisphere demand, maybe many of the DL passengers were getting off at JNB to fly to CPT anyway.

Maybe with the faster flight times it can do the triangle and keep the overall schedule.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

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

Wed May 20, 2020 11:40 pm

Currently from the 13 A359 that Delta has only 2 have the new Sharklets, correspondent wing twist and probably 280 ton MTOW while the remaining should be 275 ton birds. This combined with the decrease in bookings will probably make a more efficient route and increase the revenue by doing ATL-JNB-CPT-ATL at least at a first stage
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

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

Thu May 21, 2020 12:08 am

zeke wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
If A359 carries more than 77L, why would DL need to add a fuel stop at CPT when returning to ATL from JNB, using A359 but not 77L?

https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-cap ... rbus-a350/


No idea, maybe they don’t have the demand to fill the extra capacity of A350 out JNB and adding CPT is more beneficial. When we operated from CPT there was more demand for cargo from there, there are many carries operating out of JNB and less from CPT.

CPT also has good seasonal northern hemisphere demand, maybe many of the DL passengers were getting off at JNB to fly to CPT anyway.

Maybe with the faster flight times it can do the triangle and keep the overall schedule.



Actually, in the link to the story it says the A359 is not capable of flying JNB-ATL route hence the CPT stop over. The direct quote:



The Atlanta-based carrier will add A350-900s with the capability of flying all but one of the four ultra long-haul routes previously flown with 777-200LRs, Delta president Glen Hauenstein told staff during a virtual town hall on Wednesday viewed by TPG. Flights to Mumbai (BOM), Shanghai Pudong (PVG) and Sydney (SYD) will continue as they are with the Airbus jets, with modifications planned for its flight to Johannesburg (JNB).


https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-cap ... rbus-a350/
Last edited by ElroyJetson on Thu May 21, 2020 12:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
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
 
moyangmm
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

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

Thu May 21, 2020 12:09 am

zeke wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
If A359 carries more than 77L, why would DL need to add a fuel stop at CPT when returning to ATL from JNB, using A359 but not 77L?

https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-cap ... rbus-a350/


No idea, maybe they don’t have the demand to fill the extra capacity of A350 out JNB and adding CPT is more beneficial. When we operated from CPT there was more demand for cargo from there, there are many carries operating out of JNB and less from CPT.

CPT also has good seasonal northern hemisphere demand, maybe many of the DL passengers were getting off at JNB to fly to CPT anyway.

Maybe with the faster flight times it can do the triangle and keep the overall schedule.


From the TPG article, it does look like the reason behind adding CPT stop is related to aircraft performance.

Delta will continue Johannesburg flights with the A350 by adding a stop in Cape Town (CPT), said Hauenstein. The airline’s South Africa service will follow a new circular routing that goes: Atlanta-Johannesburg-Cape Town-Atlanta. The stop will allow for refueling at sea level before beginning the 8,130-mile trek back to the U.S.


So CPT is definitely a fuel stop that is only required by A359, not by 77L.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4839
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

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

Thu May 21, 2020 12:37 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
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?
consequence

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/14/coronav ... -2020.html


My question would be? Meaningful to WHOM? and as? compared to What? Delta Must know and be .so It will only be with the cargo potential of the A359 vs the 777.
Whether or not you agree with them For proposing to get rid of the 777's Is of little to No Consequence. They will have to justify their business decision to their BOD..
the only way ti know for sure?? Is for some other Airline like United to fly in there and clean their Clock with Both Passengers and Cargo on the same Routes.
And the chance of that? Slim and None! Pretty hard to question an airline's Business Decisions.
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1721
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

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

Thu May 21, 2020 12:51 am

zeke wrote:
FriscoHeavy wrote:
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.


There is nothing to support the statement “clearly the 77L was the better plane for the route while they were in the fleet”. They were being used as they didn’t have anything else fulfill the role. If they were the best choice they simply would be retained.

With sufficient A350s coming online they have a choice as to equipment, the reason why the A350 wasn’t being used on the route earlier is they probably the A350 could earn more money with the new product on other routes, the yields are better elsewhere. The A350 also has a slightly higher seating capacity (306 vs 288 in the DL configuration).

There has been nothing presented to show DL carried a lot of cargo out of JNB. The whole premise about carrying a meaningful cargo payload started off without a factual basis.


As others have pointed out just above, the A350 does lag in performance out of JNB, which is why it will stop in CPT coming back.

It just takes a little common sense and to be able to step back a bit to see it. If the A350 was superior on the JNB and SYD routes, it would have already been flying it.

You get so caught up in the minute details that you fail to see the overall big picture.

As I mentioned, they will make the routes work with the A350 and I am sure it will do well, but it’s no 77L when it comes to capability.

Does the A350 burn less fuel and is overall more efficient? Absolutely. But when a plane is paid for versus having a huge payment, it doesn’t automatically make the newer, more efficient plane the best choice overall.

Again, the mere idea that DL is going to stop at CPT is a clear sign it doesn’t have the balls to do the route without significant restrictions. It’s okay. All planes have areas where they shine and areas where they fall short.

Unfortunately, you are very biased in your views and it’s detrimental to the conversation.

Again, all planes have pros and cons on various routes and so forth.

Just try to step back and look at the big picture sometimes. It will add more credibility to your posts when you aren’t so one-sided.
Whatever
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

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

Thu May 21, 2020 3:33 am

T54A wrote:
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.


So, do the following statements still stand?

T54A wrote:
280t is meaningless out of JNB. An A359 will seldom see more than 270t off Rwy03L and 262t off Rwy21R
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
User avatar
volauvent
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu May 21, 2020 4:41 am

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

Thu May 21, 2020 4:59 am

Running some quick perf calculations out of JNB, assuming the best runway (03L) and average QNH for JNB, gives:

For 30°C and nil wind (worst case summer day): ~252T max take off weight. 259T for 25°C and 266T for 20°C.
Assuming 100T fuel load (not sure how much would be required on an average JNB-ATL setor), around 136T for the bird itself and about 5T for catering, water, etc., that respectively gives (very roughly) 11T, 18T and 25T payload.

For 5kts headwind, with the same 3 temperature points, we get: 253, 261 and 268T, giving approximate payloads of 12, 20 and 27T.
For 10kts headwind (no reasonable dispatch officer would bank on 10kts headwind), we get 255, 262 and 270T, or 14, 21 and 29T payloads.

To lift the full 280T MTOW, you'd need 0°C and around 17kts of headwind.

Of course, these figures are not exactly accurate to DL's operation or aircraft, they're just a ballpark They could be fine-tuned by their ops dept.

If the flight leaves in the evening (does it?) to take advantage of lower air temperatures, on a calm and warm summer night (worst-ish case) it could lift at least 20T+ of payload, conservatively and depending on fuel load.
Whether that is enough to make a profit on that leg, I don't know. That would depend on the yields. Cargo would be hard to carry in the summer. Note that south African summer is winter in the northern hemisphere, which generally means stronger headwinds going westbound and requiring more fuel, thus compounding the issue.
Also, I don't know how that compares to the 77L, though I know the 77L would also be MTOW limited in the same conditions and would burn 25 to 30T more fuel on the same sector, meaning that more payload would be required to generate the same profit anyway.

Routing through CPT would seem to make sense, at least seasonally, to maximize payload uplift.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Thu May 21, 2020 7:39 am

moyangmm wrote:
From the TPG article, it does look like the reason behind adding CPT stop is related to aircraft performance.


Please trying to call anything posted on that blog as being an article is a joke, it even clearly states at the bottom that "Opinions expressed here are the author’s alone, not those of any bank, credit card issuer, airlines or hotel chain, and have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any of these entities."

They can post what they like on there.

moyangmm wrote:
So CPT is definitely a fuel stop that is only required by A359, not by 77L.


It doesn't say that at all, the opinion of one of the travelers below the blog is saying how they like this as they were purchasing tickets on other carriers to get to CPT from JNB, and now they can stay on the same aircraft.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Thu May 21, 2020 7:43 am

MoKa777 wrote:
So, do the following statements still stand?


It will depend on the airline, if they want to/ or have purchased the extended performance or not. Going by others have posted above, DL did invest in some extended performance on the 77L, they may have done the same on the A350.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
T54A
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:47 am

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

Thu May 21, 2020 7:45 am

MoKa777 wrote:
T54A wrote:
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.


So, do the following statements still stand?

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


Yes, the figures I quoted there are from the current Airbus FlySmart program and include the latest obstacle data. I used 20deg C, 5HW and Q1020, so some days could be a bit better as it’s winter.
T6, Allouette 3, Oryx, King Air, B1900, B727, B744, A319, A342/3/6 A332/3 A359
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Thu May 21, 2020 8:00 am

FriscoHeavy wrote:
As others have pointed out just above, the A350 does lag in performance out of JNB, which is why it will stop in CPT coming back.


When I pointed out that the "270 tonne limit" was not a runway limit, it was something off airport, the user came back and then stated that the obstacles were recently removed. I am, not going to explain to others how to extract additional performance, that is our commercial advantage.

FriscoHeavy wrote:
It just takes a little common sense and to be able to step back a bit to see it. If the A350 was superior on the JNB and SYD routes, it would have already been flying it.


No, the way DL have structured their workforce means that aircraft types are associated with bases, and those bases fly particular routes. Putting an A350 on a 777 base route is not that straightforward when both types are in service. Announcing all 777s will retire makes the 777 base issue a moot point. The debate about the A350 not having the legs to fly the pacific are an absolute joke.

FriscoHeavy wrote:
As I mentioned, they will make the routes work with the A350 and I am sure it will do well, but it’s no 77L when it comes to capability.


Its disingenuous to pretend that DLs 77Ls are standard, they are doing what they are doing with uprated engines and uprated tyre speeds, that costs millions per frame.

FriscoHeavy wrote:
Again, the mere idea that DL is going to stop at CPT is a clear sign it doesn’t have the balls to do the route without significant restrictions. It’s okay. All planes have areas where they shine and areas where they fall short.


Not at all, it could mean a lot of their passengers wanted to go to CPT anyway, and with the faster cruise speed the A350 can do the triangle while maintaining the overall schedule.
Last edited by zeke on Thu May 21, 2020 8:01 am, edited 3 times in total.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1848
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

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

Thu May 21, 2020 8:00 am

FriscoHeavy wrote:
As others have pointed out just above, the A350 does lag in performance out of JNB, which is why it will stop in CPT coming back.

It just takes a little common sense and to be able to step back a bit to see it. If the A350 was superior on the JNB and SYD routes, it would have already been flying it.

You get so caught up in the minute details that you fail to see the overall big picture.

As I mentioned, they will make the routes work with the A350 and I am sure it will do well, but it’s no 77L when it comes to capability.

Does the A350 burn less fuel and is overall more efficient? Absolutely. But when a plane is paid for versus having a huge payment, it doesn’t automatically make the newer, more efficient plane the best choice overall.

Again, the mere idea that DL is going to stop at CPT is a clear sign it doesn’t have the balls to do the route without significant restrictions. It’s okay. All planes have areas where they shine and areas where they fall short.

Unfortunately, you are very biased in your views and it’s detrimental to the conversation.

Again, all planes have pros and cons on various routes and so forth.

Just try to step back and look at the big picture sometimes. It will add more credibility to your posts when you aren’t so one-sided.



The premise of this thread isn't why DL is using the 77L on the route, but if the A359 can take meaningful cargo out of JNB for DL. Now that is a very open ended question as 1t could be meaningful. So who decides what meaningful means? So it looks like the A359 can take meaningful cargo out of JNB to ATL.

The focus on the small details is when we start comparing the frames for the airline on the route.

It could be that DL is adding the CPT stop because, while it adds extra costs the revenue opportunities available to the airline offsets those costs and you can fly more cargo out of South Africa with the A350 than the 77L.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Thu May 21, 2020 8:06 am

T54A wrote:
Yes, the figures I quoted there are from the current Airbus FlySmart program and include the latest obstacle data. I used 20deg C, 5HW and Q1020, so some days could be a bit better as it’s winter.


You should clarify that by stating it reflects your airlines performance, not what the airframe is capable of. The flysmart EFB database has tail specific performance data in it, you can only access what your airline has paid for.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3048
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

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

Thu May 21, 2020 8:46 am

Some thoughts about this thread :

B777-200LR is tyre speed limited, before runway length limited (JNB- RW03L/21R) conseq. if no other TOW limitation are present (obstacle, 2e segment clb) installation of higher rated engines (GE90-115B) to improve the T/O performance is useless, because the T/O performance is determent by Vr versus lift at that speed. (Only with extreme high OAT's a small performance gain may be possible)

According ACAPS the A359 has not reached any tyre speed limitation before max structural TOW (280T), so the aircraft will be runway length limited at JNB. (average 272 tons), installation of higher rated engines may further increase the runway length limited TOW from JNB.

Note : T/O performance may be further reduced with a low pressure system overhead JNB : the engines could than be RPM limited (very thin air- very high RPM to produce thrust)
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

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

Thu May 21, 2020 2:58 pm

zeke wrote:
FriscoHeavy wrote:
As others have pointed out just above, the A350 does lag in performance out of JNB, which is why it will stop in CPT coming back.


When I pointed out that the "270 tonne limit" was not a runway limit, it was something off airport, the user came back and then stated that the obstacles were recently removed. I am, not going to explain to others how to extract additional performance, that is our commercial advantage.

FriscoHeavy wrote:
It just takes a little common sense and to be able to step back a bit to see it. If the A350 was superior on the JNB and SYD routes, it would have already been flying it.


No, the way DL have structured their workforce means that aircraft types are associated with bases, and those bases fly particular routes. Putting an A350 on a 777 base route is not that straightforward when both types are in service. Announcing all 777s will retire makes the 777 base issue a moot point. The debate about the A350 not having the legs to fly the pacific are an absolute joke.

FriscoHeavy wrote:
As I mentioned, they will make the routes work with the A350 and I am sure it will do well, but it’s no 77L when it comes to capability.


Its disingenuous to pretend that DLs 77Ls are standard, they are doing what they are doing with uprated engines and uprated tyre speeds, that costs millions per frame.

FriscoHeavy wrote:
Again, the mere idea that DL is going to stop at CPT is a clear sign it doesn’t have the balls to do the route without significant restrictions. It’s okay. All planes have areas where they shine and areas where they fall short.


Not at all, it could mean a lot of their passengers wanted to go to CPT anyway, and with the faster cruise speed the A350 can do the triangle while maintaining the overall schedule.

Delta's only upgrade on the 77L is the Goodrich tyre rated for higher speeds, they still only have the 110's on the 77L, probably just a thrust bump option like most 77W operators have now.
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1721
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

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

Thu May 21, 2020 3:09 pm

Zeke is incorrect on that aspect. DL does not have 'upgraded' engines. They use the standard GE-110B. Could they have upgraded to the -115B? Yes. But they didn't, so they are using the stock 77L engines.
Whatever
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

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

Thu May 21, 2020 3:46 pm

The article referencing the CPT stop over in the JNB-ATL route flatly said the A359 was capable of flying all of DL's ULH routes except JNB-ATL. It is tough to spin that fact any other way.

Now what capability DL needs on the route is unknown, but it is also a fact their 77L's flew the route non-stop for many years. Call this an inconvenient truth.

The A359 is an excellent aircraft, but as others have stated, no planes can be all things in all situations. The 77L is a payload/range monster. That is what is was optimized to do.

DL will apparently try to make the route work with a fuel stop over in CPT. Good for them. I am a big DL fan and I am confident they have crunched the numbers and believe they can make the route work with an A359.

So that's my take...spin away. :)
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
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Thu May 21, 2020 4:02 pm

FriscoHeavy wrote:
Zeke is incorrect on that aspect. DL does not have 'upgraded' engines. They use the standard GE-110B. Could they have upgraded to the -115B? Yes. But they didn't, so they are using the stock 77L engines.


I actually stated earlier in this thread “ The 77L also has less thrust compared to the 77W 110 klb vs 115 klb per side) for the same MTOW.” and got corrected by someone saying they have the same thrust as the 77W.

Stop jumping on my back every 5 seconds when it was someone else who stated I was wrong earlier when I stated 110 klb.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Thu May 21, 2020 4:18 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
The article referencing the CPT stop over in the JNB-ATL route flatly said the A359 was capable of flying all of DL's ULH routes except JNB-ATL. It is tough to spin that fact any other way.


Except the blog doesn’t actually state that.

And the elephant in the room is that SAA has already been flying JNB-JFK with the A350.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
dennypayne
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:38 am

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

Thu May 21, 2020 4:18 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
The article referencing the CPT stop over in the JNB-ATL route flatly said the A359 was capable of flying all of DL's ULH routes except JNB-ATL. It is tough to spin that fact any other way.

Because everything written on the Internet is 100% true. :roll:

This thread just reminds me how a lot of people can't seem to accept that "it depends" is a valid answer for a lot of things in aviation. In this case it depends on a whole host of variables: daily weather, loads, etc. and several that we are not all privy to. Anyone looking at this seriously is not expecting a tidy answer to "which aircraft is better."

ElroyJetson wrote:
Now what capability DL needs on the route is unknown, but it is also a fact their 77L's flew the route non-stop for many years. Call this an inconvenient truth.

Truth is truth, it's only inconvenient if your motive is to prop up "your side" at all costs. And to me that's what 90% of this thread seems to be. I don't quite understand why a particular aircraft is "better" just because it is capable of flying non-stop somewhere. We have no idea whether DL will make more money flying the 77L non-stop, or the A359 with a stop, or even at this point whether the CPT stop is truly happening, but the money is all that is going to matter to DL in the end.

ElroyJetson wrote:
So that's my take...spin away. :)

Again, no spin required if there's no ulterior motive that doesn't have much to do with reality.
A300/310/319/320/321/332/333/343/380 AN24/28/38/148 ARJ AT6/7 B190
B717/722/732/3/4/5/7/8/9 741/744/752/753/762/763/764/772/773/788/789
CR1/2/7/9 D8S D93/4/5 DHC2/3/7/8 D28/38 EMB/EM2/ER3/D/4/E70/75/90
F50/100 J31 L10 L4T M11/80/87/90 SF3 SU9 TU3/TU5 YK2
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

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

Thu May 21, 2020 6:23 pm

zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
The article referencing the CPT stop over in the JNB-ATL route flatly said the A359 was capable of flying all of DL's ULH routes except JNB-ATL. It is tough to spin that fact any other way.


Except the blog doesn’t actually state that.

And the elephant in the room is that SAA has already been flying JNB-JFK with the A350.



Very poor comparison. JNB-JFK is 6925 nm. That is 409 nm shorter than JNB-ATL. That is almost an hour less flight time.

Definitely nothing close to an apples to apples comparison. And yes, the article said the A 359 can fly all DL's ULH except JNB-ATL. Hence the refueling stop in CPT.


Regards.
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
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

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

Thu May 21, 2020 6:30 pm

dennypayne wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
The article referencing the CPT stop over in the JNB-ATL route flatly said the A359 was capable of flying all of DL's ULH routes except JNB-ATL. It is tough to spin that fact any other way.

Because everything written on the Internet is 100% true. :roll:

This thread just reminds me how a lot of people can't seem to accept that "it depends" is a valid answer for a lot of things in aviation. In this case it depends on a whole host of variables: daily weather, loads, etc. and several that we are not all privy to. Anyone looking at this seriously is not expecting a tidy answer to "which aircraft is better."

ElroyJetson wrote:
Now what capability DL needs on the route is unknown, but it is also a fact their 77L's flew the route non-stop for many years. Call this an inconvenient truth.

Truth is truth, it's only inconvenient if your motive is to prop up "your side" at all costs. And to me that's what 90% of this thread seems to be. I don't quite understand why a particular aircraft is "better" just because it is capable of flying non-stop somewhere. We have no idea whether DL will make more money flying the 77L non-stop, or the A359 with a stop, or even at this point whether the CPT stop is truly happening, but the money is all that is going to matter to DL in the end.

ElroyJetson wrote:
So that's my take...spin away. :)

Again, no spin required if there's no ulterior motive that doesn't have much to do with reality.



I have no interest in which aircraft is better. The question was could the A359 fly the mission since DL was eliminating their 777 fleet. It appears DL has answered the question.

Regards.
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
enzo011
Posts: 1848
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

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

Thu May 21, 2020 7:59 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
[I have no interest in which aircraft is better. The question was could the A359 fly the mission since DL was eliminating their 777 fleet. It appears DL has answered the question.

Regards.



No, your question was if the A359 could do the route with meaningful cargo. Do you want to define what meaningful means? Then we will have an answer on whether it could do the route on your thread topic.

I do find it a little strange that you firstly asked such an open ended question as the thread starter and now that DL has released, most likely, what their plans are once they can fly the route again, you come up with this assessment,

ElroyJetson wrote:
Now what capability DL needs on the route is unknown, but it is also a fact their 77L's flew the route non-stop for many years. Call this an inconvenient truth.


So you are not comparing the aircraft, right? Please don't try to insult our intelligence by trying to make it look like you are only here to learn, you started this thread to compare what the two frames can do and which one is better. Otherwise you wouldn't have brought the 77L into it.

As for the inconvenient truth? The 77L will have a higher OEW than the A359 and have less seats for sale when you do a comparison. It is obvious that all aircraft will have limitations on long haul flights out of JNB due to the altitude and temperature in summer. But the 77L needs 67T more weight to make it the better aircraft for this route. That is the almost the same weight as a fully loaded A223 in difference between the two models. It will seat less passengers as well with this extra 67T between the models. Other than both flying long haul routes, this is actually a little bit of an apples and oranges comparison as you are comparing two aircraft in totally different weight classes.
 
User avatar
novarupta
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:32 am

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

Fri May 22, 2020 12:36 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
dennypayne wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
The article referencing the CPT stop over in the JNB-ATL route flatly said the A359 was capable of flying all of DL's ULH routes except JNB-ATL. It is tough to spin that fact any other way.

Because everything written on the Internet is 100% true. :roll:

This thread just reminds me how a lot of people can't seem to accept that "it depends" is a valid answer for a lot of things in aviation. In this case it depends on a whole host of variables: daily weather, loads, etc. and several that we are not all privy to. Anyone looking at this seriously is not expecting a tidy answer to "which aircraft is better."

ElroyJetson wrote:
Now what capability DL needs on the route is unknown, but it is also a fact their 77L's flew the route non-stop for many years. Call this an inconvenient truth.

Truth is truth, it's only inconvenient if your motive is to prop up "your side" at all costs. And to me that's what 90% of this thread seems to be. I don't quite understand why a particular aircraft is "better" just because it is capable of flying non-stop somewhere. We have no idea whether DL will make more money flying the 77L non-stop, or the A359 with a stop, or even at this point whether the CPT stop is truly happening, but the money is all that is going to matter to DL in the end.

ElroyJetson wrote:
So that's my take...spin away. :)

Again, no spin required if there's no ulterior motive that doesn't have much to do with reality.



I have no interest in which aircraft is better. The question was could the A359 fly the mission since DL was eliminating their 777 fleet. It appears DL has answered the question.

Regards.


In case you’re not aware, DAL201 (the return callsign) isn’t always a non-stop mission - you do have occasions where a tech stop has been necessary, especially during the winter.

Also long haul flights tacking on a additional destination/stop to fill seats is not anything unusual either - so it’s hasty/unwise for anyone to just conclude or assume it’s because of any deficiency in an airplane’s capability without any concrete data from the airlines dispatchers themselves. British Airways and Virgin Atlantic do that frequently with Caribbean destinations (to fill the 777/A330/747)- so it’s no surprise if Delta decides to do the same in RSA post COVID-19 given the slump in travel.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12749
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Fri May 22, 2020 6:36 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
The article referencing the CPT stop over in the JNB-ATL route flatly said the A359 was capable of flying all of DL's ULH routes except JNB-ATL. It is tough to spin that fact any other way. )


No spin needed. Even IF the DL A359 couldn´t do it, that is likely because their, airline specific, configuration doesn´t have the umpf to do it, and Delta just decided the extra Revenue is not worth paying Airbus for the upgrade. We know that a CX A359 would do it with the same payload as the 77L under their company rules, just as we know that Deltas spec/procedures yield a lot less payload, because both flight planing results are in this thread.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Fri May 22, 2020 9:56 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
[ And yes, the article said the A 359 can fly all DL's ULH except JNB-ATL. Hence the refueling stop in CPT.


The blog does not state that, if it did you would have quoted the words where they actually state that.

novarupta wrote:
In case you’re not aware, DAL201 (the return callsign) isn’t always a non-stop mission - you do have occasions where a tech stop has been necessary, especially during the winter.


I don’t think that observation will be very popular with some on this thread.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
novarupta
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:32 am

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

Fri May 22, 2020 12:54 pm

zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
[ And yes, the article said the A 359 can fly all DL's ULH except JNB-ATL. Hence the refueling stop in CPT.


The blog does not state that, if it did you would have quoted the words where they actually state that.

novarupta wrote:
In case you’re not aware, DAL201 (the return callsign) isn’t always a non-stop mission - you do have occasions where a tech stop has been necessary, especially during the winter.


I don’t think that observation will be very popular with some on this thread.



Some folks just don’t realise that the idea is to make a profit, not so show off an airplane’s capability. A Delta 777-200LR or A350-900 needing a stop doesn’t mean it’s not making money for the airline. For the 777, the cargo may have been a way of increasing the profit margin, for the A350, being cheaper to operate (and having more seats in Delta’s layout) - just means it may not need to carry as much cargo as the 777 to generate the same profit margin.

I personally am one the belief that even if Delta kept the 777 in service, they would have made that stop in Cape Town as well as post pandemic passenger numbers are at an all time low - so to be able to fill either airplane to RSA they’ll need to pair the two cities.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3477
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Wed Jun 03, 2020 8:37 pm

I just ran some numbers through my my models and the 77L taking a 40t payload out of JNB direct to ATL would require about 309t takeoff weight (looks to be about the limit looking at the ACAPS takeoff chart) and would burn about 117t of fuel over the course of about 16:08. Assuming that the A350 were to be tasked with the same mission it would burn about 97t of fuel in 16:00 but need to takeoff at 278t, lets be honest, it isn't doing that. When the mission goes via CPT the Takeoff weight required in JNB drops to 192t and then the takeoff weight in CPT is ~274.5t. the total flight time of both parts of the mission combined is 17:16 (15:26+01:50) with a total fuel use of ~103t (93+9.7).

Fred
Image
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

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

Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:25 am

flipdewaf wrote:
I just ran some numbers through my my models and the 77L taking a 40t payload out of JNB direct to ATL would require about 309t takeoff weight (looks to be about the limit looking at the ACAPS takeoff chart) and would burn about 117t of fuel over the course of about 16:08. Assuming that the A350 were to be tasked with the same mission it would burn about 97t of fuel in 16:00 but need to takeoff at 278t, lets be honest, it isn't doing that. When the mission goes via CPT the Takeoff weight required in JNB drops to 192t and then the takeoff weight in CPT is ~274.5t. the total flight time of both parts of the mission combined is 17:16 (15:26+01:50) with a total fuel use of ~103t (93+9.7).

Fred

Great numbers, Fred!! Now it's crystal clear how much the A350 will really save. And good to see even on a 16+hr day from CPT(which is probably really unlikely considering its a bit closer than Jo'Burg) the A359 would still get in the 40t range payload wise. I'm gonna miss the 77L though, what a monster.
 
ITSTours
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

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

Thu Jun 04, 2020 9:04 am

flipdewaf wrote:
I just ran some numbers through my my models and the 77L taking a 40t payload out of JNB direct to ATL would require about 309t takeoff weight (looks to be about the limit looking at the ACAPS takeoff chart) and would burn about 117t of fuel over the course of about 16:08. Assuming that the A350 were to be tasked with the same mission it would burn about 97t of fuel in 16:00 but need to takeoff at 278t, lets be honest, it isn't doing that. When the mission goes via CPT the Takeoff weight required in JNB drops to 192t and then the takeoff weight in CPT is ~274.5t. the total flight time of both parts of the mission combined is 17:16 (15:26+01:50) with a total fuel use of ~103t (93+9.7).

Fred


This number makes a good sense.

For people who have been asking what is the cargo out of JNB,
The monthly average cargo payload for JNB-ATL route was at most 4.58 metric ton. Average is 3.2 ton. (Source: US BTS)

Let's say the pax payload is 29t for 291 seats. (Average pax load factor was around 90% so actual pax payload is slightly less)
With the 5t cargo the total payload becomes about 34t.

Even with this payload, it seems Delta had blocked 1-2 seats daily on average.
Also the 77L occasionally had diverted, likely for refueling, on Mar 19, Feb 8, Jan 17, Jan 6, Dec 29, for example.

If the max takeoff weight allowed for A350 at JNB is around 270t, it may need to block some seats to lift 5t cargo for the direct flight, or minimal cargo with full pax.
And I agree this is by no means a disgrace for A350. It's not MTOW limited after all, and it's also a difficult route for 77L as well.

Also it is a very safe bet for Delta that they will not see a full-flight demand for JNB-ATL route a while due to the coronavirus.
So it's a reasonable choice if they decide to block seats (~270?) and carry 5t cargo.
Or to carry more people by stopping at CPT.

I agree with this statement.
novarupta wrote:
I personally am one the belief that even if Delta kept the 777 in service, they would have made that stop in Cape Town as well as post pandemic passenger numbers are at an all time low - so to be able to fill either airplane to RSA they’ll need to pair the two cities.
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1721
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

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

Thu Jun 04, 2020 11:49 am

DylanHarvey wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
I just ran some numbers through my my models and the 77L taking a 40t payload out of JNB direct to ATL would require about 309t takeoff weight (looks to be about the limit looking at the ACAPS takeoff chart) and would burn about 117t of fuel over the course of about 16:08. Assuming that the A350 were to be tasked with the same mission it would burn about 97t of fuel in 16:00 but need to takeoff at 278t, lets be honest, it isn't doing that. When the mission goes via CPT the Takeoff weight required in JNB drops to 192t and then the takeoff weight in CPT is ~274.5t. the total flight time of both parts of the mission combined is 17:16 (15:26+01:50) with a total fuel use of ~103t (93+9.7).

Fred

Great numbers, Fred!! Now it's crystal clear how much the A350 will really save. And good to see even on a 16+hr day from CPT(which is probably really unlikely considering its a bit closer than Jo'Burg) the A359 would still get in the 40t range payload wise. I'm gonna miss the 77L though, what a monster.


The CPT-ATL leg will likely be over 16 hours a majority of the time. The CPT-EWR flight I was on (which is a bit shorter), clocked in at 16:10 and this was about average. All that to say, it's very likely the leg will exceed 16 hours a majority of the time.
Whatever
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

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

Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:17 pm

FriscoHeavy wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
I just ran some numbers through my my models and the 77L taking a 40t payload out of JNB direct to ATL would require about 309t takeoff weight (looks to be about the limit looking at the ACAPS takeoff chart) and would burn about 117t of fuel over the course of about 16:08. Assuming that the A350 were to be tasked with the same mission it would burn about 97t of fuel in 16:00 but need to takeoff at 278t, lets be honest, it isn't doing that. When the mission goes via CPT the Takeoff weight required in JNB drops to 192t and then the takeoff weight in CPT is ~274.5t. the total flight time of both parts of the mission combined is 17:16 (15:26+01:50) with a total fuel use of ~103t (93+9.7).

Fred

Great numbers, Fred!! Now it's crystal clear how much the A350 will really save. And good to see even on a 16+hr day from CPT(which is probably really unlikely considering its a bit closer than Jo'Burg) the A359 would still get in the 40t range payload wise. I'm gonna miss the 77L though, what a monster.


The CPT-ATL leg will likely be over 16 hours a majority of the time. The CPT-EWR flight I was on (which is a bit shorter), clocked in at 16:10 and this was about average. All that to say, it's very likely the leg will exceed 16 hours a majority of the time.

The block time is most likely gonna be under 16 except in winter months. Either way DL will always be able to take full passengers no matter
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

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

Thu Jun 04, 2020 11:44 pm

DylanHarvey wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
I just ran some numbers through my my models and the 77L taking a 40t payload out of JNB direct to ATL would require about 309t takeoff weight (looks to be about the limit looking at the ACAPS takeoff chart) and would burn about 117t of fuel over the course of about 16:08. Assuming that the A350 were to be tasked with the same mission it would burn about 97t of fuel in 16:00 but need to takeoff at 278t, lets be honest, it isn't doing that. When the mission goes via CPT the Takeoff weight required in JNB drops to 192t and then the takeoff weight in CPT is ~274.5t. the total flight time of both parts of the mission combined is 17:16 (15:26+01:50) with a total fuel use of ~103t (93+9.7).

Fred

Great numbers, Fred!! Now it's crystal clear how much the A350 will really save. And good to see even on a 16+hr day from CPT(which is probably really unlikely considering its a bit closer than Jo'Burg) the A359 would still get in the 40t range payload wise. I'm gonna miss the 77L though, what a monster.



Thanks Fred. Your numbers look correct. I started this thread making several assumptions. One, the A359 could fly all of DL's ULH routes with the possible exception of JNB-ATL. This has since been confirmed by DL. I also assumed based on a post by a DL employee that JNB-ATL flight would routinely carry cargo as he stated ATL-JNB routinely carried cargo (I quoted his post above). That has since been confirmed. The average daily cargo carried on the route of 3.2 tons per day also sounds correct. That is meaningful cargo.

Since the A359 was designed specifically as a 77E replacement, to even consider it as an aircraft capable of a route like JNB-ATL is a compliment. The modified 77L can do the route (just) but the 77E cannot.

Thanks to all the contributions to this thread.
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
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3477
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Fri Jun 05, 2020 10:20 am

FriscoHeavy wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
I just ran some numbers through my my models and the 77L taking a 40t payload out of JNB direct to ATL would require about 309t takeoff weight (looks to be about the limit looking at the ACAPS takeoff chart) and would burn about 117t of fuel over the course of about 16:08. Assuming that the A350 were to be tasked with the same mission it would burn about 97t of fuel in 16:00 but need to takeoff at 278t, lets be honest, it isn't doing that. When the mission goes via CPT the Takeoff weight required in JNB drops to 192t and then the takeoff weight in CPT is ~274.5t. the total flight time of both parts of the mission combined is 17:16 (15:26+01:50) with a total fuel use of ~103t (93+9.7).

Fred

Great numbers, Fred!! Now it's crystal clear how much the A350 will really save. And good to see even on a 16+hr day from CPT(which is probably really unlikely considering its a bit closer than Jo'Burg) the A359 would still get in the 40t range payload wise. I'm gonna miss the 77L though, what a monster.


The CPT-ATL leg will likely be over 16 hours a majority of the time. The CPT-EWR flight I was on (which is a bit shorter), clocked in at 16:10 and this was about average. All that to say, it's very likely the leg will exceed 16 hours a majority of the time.


My model always predicts slightly less time than would be expected for several reasons:
-It assumes great circle route (never really happens)
-Always climbs at basically max rate allowed by all engines continuous thrust at a set speed
-The timing ends at touchdown and begins at 100ft agl (to avoid having to program a very dynamic phase pf flight, small error in fuel use, big headache resolved)

Fred
Image
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

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

Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:19 am

flipdewaf wrote:
FriscoHeavy wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
Great numbers, Fred!! Now it's crystal clear how much the A350 will really save. And good to see even on a 16+hr day from CPT(which is probably really unlikely considering its a bit closer than Jo'Burg) the A359 would still get in the 40t range payload wise. I'm gonna miss the 77L though, what a monster.


The CPT-ATL leg will likely be over 16 hours a majority of the time. The CPT-EWR flight I was on (which is a bit shorter), clocked in at 16:10 and this was about average. All that to say, it's very likely the leg will exceed 16 hours a majority of the time.


My model always predicts slightly less time than would be expected for several reasons:
-It assumes great circle route (never really happens)
-Always climbs at basically max rate allowed by all engines continuous thrust at a set speed
-The timing ends at touchdown and begins at 100ft agl (to avoid having to program a very dynamic phase pf flight, small error in fuel use, big headache resolved)

Fred

Ok that’s good to know actually. The funny thing with the 359, for its wing and power, it just floats up to cruise. I’ve seen it only average like 1200fpm up to 370.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 636
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

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

Sat Jun 06, 2020 1:25 am

DylanHarvey wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
FriscoHeavy wrote:

The CPT-ATL leg will likely be over 16 hours a majority of the time. The CPT-EWR flight I was on (which is a bit shorter), clocked in at 16:10 and this was about average. All that to say, it's very likely the leg will exceed 16 hours a majority of the time.


My model always predicts slightly less time than would be expected for several reasons:
-It assumes great circle route (never really happens)
-Always climbs at basically max rate allowed by all engines continuous thrust at a set speed
-The timing ends at touchdown and begins at 100ft agl (to avoid having to program a very dynamic phase pf flight, small error in fuel use, big headache resolved)

Fred

Ok that’s good to know actually. The funny thing with the 359, for its wing and power, it just floats up to cruise. I’ve seen it only average like 1200fpm up to 370.


Is that a function of climb thrust available? For maintenance, is it possible RR has limited climb thrust to reduce wear and tear. Other than a small fuel savings, there’s really no reason to climb like a rocket when heavy.

What’s the climb thrust on XWB-84? XWB-97? TEN on 787?
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

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

Sat Jun 06, 2020 2:00 am

Okcflyer wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:

My model always predicts slightly less time than would be expected for several reasons:
-It assumes great circle route (never really happens)
-Always climbs at basically max rate allowed by all engines continuous thrust at a set speed
-The timing ends at touchdown and begins at 100ft agl (to avoid having to program a very dynamic phase pf flight, small error in fuel use, big headache resolved)

Fred

Ok that’s good to know actually. The funny thing with the 359, for its wing and power, it just floats up to cruise. I’ve seen it only average like 1200fpm up to 370.


Is that a function of climb thrust available? For maintenance, is it possible RR has limited climb thrust to reduce wear and tear. Other than a small fuel savings, there’s really no reason to climb like a rocket when heavy.

What’s the climb thrust on XWB-84? XWB-97? TEN on 787?

I imagine just fuel savings. The A359 has probably the best field performance out of any widebody by far. I mean it can get close to 380 at MTOW from what I’ve heard.
 
gloom
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

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

Sat Jun 06, 2020 6:18 am

Okcflyer wrote:
Is that a function of climb thrust available?


Not really.
It's a wing load function on most modern airliners. For two holers, excess of thrust is significant enough to not worry about climb thrust, and as a result optimum FL (where the drag at given speed/weight is minimum) is below max FL (defined as a maximum FL reachable with minimum required, and sustained climb rate).
Wing load for A350 is much lower than on most counterparts (since modern wings usually are bigger on LR and ULR planes, to increase range, weight and internal tank volume). Hence higher optimum FL.

Cheers,
Adam
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13135
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

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

Fri Jun 19, 2020 8:19 am

Sokes wrote:
Why to take cargo on a 15 hour flight?

Er, money? ...that you don't want to give to someone else.


ElroyJetson wrote:
but if significant freight is going in one direction you can probably safely assume some freight is going back on the return.

That's actually a *VERY* poor assumption, as int'l cargo can be notoriously unidirectional in some markets.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

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

Sun Jun 21, 2020 4:27 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Sokes wrote:
Why to take cargo on a 15 hour flight?

Er, money? ...that you don't want to give to someone else.


ElroyJetson wrote:
but if significant freight is going in one direction you can probably safely assume some freight is going back on the return.

That's actually a *VERY* poor assumption, as int'l cargo can be notoriously unidirectional in some markets.



Then I guess I got lucky because an average of 3.2.tons of cargo goes from JNB-ATL daily. However, your point is well taken. I know many Chinese airports have much more air cargo going out than coming in.
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
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3477
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Tue Jun 23, 2020 7:04 am

By my calculations the A359 can take a reasonable load out of JNB to ATL but may sometimes need to block seats. When it does the triangle route via CPT it could take about 4-5t more than the 77L on the direct, take about 2.5 hrs longer with about an hours more flight time but save ~14t of fuel. The capital costs of the jet would likely eat up the savings in fuel but if it was eating in to dead time in the schedule anyway it wouldn’t matter. I’m not totally sure how the breakdown of costs work from s pure time to a flight time perspective. I can’t imagine capital write downs care about flight time, cost difference in flight time based costs may be minimal.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 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