Originally Posted by DALFA
(Post 2582648)
Not that it means much but:
ATL-ICN in travelnet says the flight is "consistently" payload optimized and looking at yesterdays flight...it left with open seats (no non-revs cleared). ATL-ICN is listed at 7,152 miles. ATL-JNB is listed at 8,439. Considering JNB is about 100 feet higher then Denver in elevation...are we sure the A350 can make it without leaving with 50+ empty seats every time? |
Originally Posted by Herkflyr
(Post 2578338)
All it takes is for the gate agent to meet the airplane on the last leg of the previous trip. "Guess what? We've got an offer you can't refuse. See you tomorrow when you check in."
To be fair that is rare and now with "robocalls" often IAs are announced via robocalls that guys listen to on their voice mail. But the gate agent scenario I just posted is contractually legal and HAS happened here. Sent from my SM-G892U using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by DALFA
(Post 2582648)
Not that it means much but:
ATL-ICN in travelnet says the flight is "consistently" payload optimized and looking at yesterdays flight...it left with open seats (no non-revs cleared). ATL-ICN is listed at 7,152 miles. ATL-JNB is listed at 8,439. Considering JNB is about 100 feet higher then Denver in elevation...are we sure the A350 can make it without leaving with 50+ empty seats every time? The two routes you quote are 1300 miles different but one is with the wind and one downwind. Big difference. We wanted the 787, Boeing would not play ball with us on the delivery schedule or build more 777-200 LR’s as a gap filler. We got our second choice but it is meeting the promised specs. The ICN flight on 29 APR had 42 seats empty with 11 non revs boarded. The flight on 30 APR went out with only 15 seats empty. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 2583017)
Contrary to some posts on here the 350 version we bought is not a 777 replacement. It does not have the range with equal takeoff parameters. Delta knew that when they purchased it. The ULR version available in about a year will be a 777LR replacement.
The two routes you quote are 1300 miles different but one is with the wind and one downwind. Big difference. We wanted the 787, Boeing would not play ball with us on the delivery schedule or build more 777-200 LR’s as a gap filler. We got our second choice but it is meeting the promised specs. The ICN flight on 29 APR had 42 seats empty with 11 non revs boarded. The flight on 30 APR went out with only 15 seats empty. |
Singapore is announcing a 19-hour flight from Singapore direct NYC on a 350 ULR. That’s some serious legs!
|
Originally Posted by OldFlyGuy
(Post 2583154)
You seem to speak from some position of "in the know." So, we screwed it up? We didn't leverage the 787-8 NWA cancellation into -9 slots. We just thought Boeing would make room for DAL despite a massive order backlog? And.. a 25 yr fleet acquisition is our 2nd choice? And almost all our partners operate 787s. When they aren't flying 777-300s. OFG
|
Originally Posted by snowdawg
(Post 2583444)
They leveraged a 300 million dollar store credit and some cheap 737-900s a few years back when the 787 had a few wrinkles to iron out. I'm surprised everyone thinks so highly of the 787, it's a glorified 767. And I like the 767 but many didn't as a wide body.
|
I understand that DL has the 268t wv. The current available max wv is 277t which should be available to DL via a paper/sw upgrade. This is normally obtained after shelling out some money to Airbus. The 277t wv configured with a reasonably heavy cabin routinely lifts 40-41t on a 15.5hr sector including 7-8t of reserves. From my understanding, the 787-9 does not come close to this in terms of payload/range performance.
|
Originally Posted by 350oew
(Post 2583623)
I understand that DL has the 268t wv. The current available max wv is 277t which should be available to DL via a paper/sw upgrade. This is normally obtained after shelling out some money to Airbus. The 277t wv configured with a reasonably heavy cabin routinely lifts 40-41t on a 15.5hr sector including 7-8t of reserves. From my understanding, the 787-9 does not come close to this in terms of payload/range performance.
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 2583700)
I don’t believe it’s a paper upgrade. Different landing gear, higher thrust motors with a different fan, beefed up wing box ect...
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:01 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands