ATL - PEK/PVG ?

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

WT,....why isn't DL flying ATL - PEK/PVG Non-stop ?
Mercy, there are a LOT of chinese who use ATL to originate, or fly-thru !

AND, for that matter, why no ATL/SYD ? (QF is already fly DFW-Brisbane I think) DL already has the 777-200 LR.

 

[WorldTraveler]

DL and NW both applied for and were awarded new PVG flights right before the merger. NW applied for DTW-PVG on the 744; DL applied for ATL-PVG on the 777. DL operated both after the merger, later downgrading the DTW-PVG to the 777 during offpeak period and reducing frequencies on ATL-PVG.

DL added DTW-PEK with the same poor slot times that AA had on ORD-PEK. Last year, DL was able to retime DTW-PEK and return to slot times similar to what UA has on ORD-PEK with clearly improved results.

DTW is clearly a geographically better hub for eastern US to Asia and that is where DL has focused its flights instead of ATL. DTW is the largest US carrier gateway to Asia outside of the west coast.

Instead of restarting ATL-PVG, DL added SEA-PEK and then SEA-PVG just last year. both cities are also served with NRT flights.
DL's presence in China is rapidly growing and right now is centered on DTW, SEA, and NRT, each of which now have PEK and PVG flights.

DL execs have said that they would like to start additional JFK-Asia flights and have also said the "we're still waiting to hear" widebody order will involve growth aircraft for SEA and LAX to Asia.


DL's CEO has said that DL's China flights are doing well and DOT data would seem to bear that out. IN the first quarter of 2013, the latest available, DOT data showed DL was the only US airline with a profitable transpac operation.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

DL and NW both applied for and were awarded new PVG flights right before the merger. NW applied for DTW-PVG on the 744; DL applied for ATL-PVG on the 777. DL operated both after the merger, later downgrading the DTW-PVG to the 777 during offpeak period and reducing frequencies on ATL-PVG.

DL added DTW-PEK with the same poor slot times that AA had on ORD-PEK. Last year, DL was able to retime DTW-PEK and return to slot times similar to what UA has on ORD-PEK with clearly improved results.

DTW is clearly a geographically better hub for eastern US to Asia and that is where DL has focused its flights instead of ATL. DTW is the largest US carrier gateway to Asia outside of the west coast.

Instead of restarting ATL-PVG, DL added SEA-PEK and then SEA-PVG just last year. both cities are also served with NRT flights.
DL's presence in China is rapidly growing and right now is centered on DTW, SEA, and NRT, each of which now have PEK and PVG flights.

DL execs have said that they would like to start additional JFK-Asia flights and have also said the "we're still waiting to hear" widebody order will involve growth aircraft for SEA and LAX to Asia.


DL's CEO has said that DL's China flights are doing well and DOT data would seem to bear that out. IN the first quarter of 2013, the latest available, DOT data showed DL was the only US airline with a profitable transpac operation.

Well, I don't doubt anything you've written here,......BUT I cannot see how ATL/China NS would not work well, simply because of all the chinese people who still 'go back' that are using ATL as the first place they board an a/c !

What about ATL/Australia with the -200 LR worldliner, with a 3/4 day a week schedule ?
As I say, qantas IS running DFW NS to the 'land down under'.

 

[WorldTraveler]

DL has said they want to grow China including from ATL but I would have to think there are other hubs that are strategically more important than ATL from China. Sure, DL's massive hub can make a lot of things work but DL seems to be focusing right now on adding strategically important routes. Doesn't mean that a route that can't make a lot of money and not be in a big market won't be added.

As for Australia, there seems to be little reason to add a route that would not serve a large part of the market which for Australia is from the west coast.

Sure the LR COULD do ATL-SYD, but there are a lot of other routes that the LR could do such as ATL-HKG or even ATL-SIN which would seem to add a lot more strategic value and possibly be more profitable.

Remember that QF doesn't operate DFW-SYD nonstop in both directions and they have significant payload restrictions. The flight might make money but they spend an enormous amount of money trying to operate at the limit of the 744 and probably alienate some customers in the process.

BTW, I suppose you know that UA is downgrading both its LAX and SFO to SYD flights from the 744 to 777 which should help the economics of DL's flights. There is a DL captain who posts on where who apparently flies LAX-SYD and he says the 777ER (which UA will have to use) would have little margin for cargo which is part of why DL uses the LR; DOT stats already show that DL carries far more cargo from SYD to LAX or SYD than UA does.
It makes more sense to operate a route that allows profit maximization than to push the limits of a plane just to serve a small part of the market.

 

[737823]

Bears, not sure why you are so interested in DL doing ULH flying from ATL. ATL-PVG was a dismal performer for DL and now with DTW as a result of the merger DL has other hubs more suited for that type of flying. A few months ago you asked a similar question here:
http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/56052-atl-pekpvg/

Couple of things, Bears. Australian tourists have zero interest in visiting Atlanta. The very small number of Australians who have business to conduct in Atlanta (like, say, Australian Coca-Cola or Westfield execs) can fly to LAX and then connect to ATL.

Westbound ATL-SYD would come in somewhere between 21 and 22 hours, depending on the wind. Even if jet fuel were cheap, that would be a very long flight that would appeal to nobody in the economy section. And since jet fuel is relatively costly, WT's point about the uneconomical nature of ultra-long-haul flights is completely correct. The fuel burned just to carry the huge quantity of fuel to fly over 9,000 miles isn't justified by the fares passengers are willing to pay. More fuel efficient to funnel people into LAX to fly to SYD, where those flights get better fuel economy per passenger mile (because they're shorter flights).

Same reasoning makes the DL buildup to Asia from Seattle look rather smart these days. SEA-Asia are shorter distances than LAX or SFO or the mid-continent super-hubs or the East Coast, and thus burn a lot less fuel. And because SEA is at the extreme northwestern edge of the US, the connections from nearly every US city are logical and efficient (no backtracking or circuity).

MAH4546 has been banging the drum for quite some time that AA will eventually fly MIA-NRT nonstop, and that's one area where I strongly disagree with him. From MIA, there are almost no domestic connections that make any sense, so that flight would have to survive almost solely on MIA O&D plus Caribbean/Latin American connecting traffic. And since it's the longest possible US-Tokyo flight, it will be the most fuel inefficient flight, and thus would have to command the highest average fares. Accordingly, I don't see MIA getting any Asian nonstops unless fuel prices become much lower on a relative basis.

In 1998 and 1999, AMR paid an average of $0.55/gal for jet fuel. Yes, just 55 cents a gallon. In 2012, AMR paid about $3.25/gal. That's almost SIX times more expensive. How much higher was AA's yield or PRASM? Barely higher at all. Fares have stagnated while fuel costs have skyrocketed. Boeing's gamble/prediction that long-thin routes would kill the hub/spoke system were undone by the jump in fuel prices. Airbus' gamble/prediction that airlines would all want super jumbo A380s for their hub/spoke system was also undermined by the huge jump in fuel prices, as airlines have demanded lighter large twin-engined jets like the A350 and 787-10 and have ordered lots of 772s and 773s.

How many 772LRs were ordered? 59, and 10 of those went to DL. It wasn't a big seller. Fuel prices killed it. Or more accurately, radically changed the economics behind it.

 

[metopower]

UA. will use former CO 777er's. They have GE engines and will perform much better on this route. Will be CO pilots and f/a's because of the fence for now I believe.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Meto,
airlineroute says that the flights will operate with FC equipped 777s which would mean PMUA... I believe PMCO 777s do not have FC unless they are reconfigured.

 

[metopower]

Not according to the UAL dispatcher that jump seated on us .But maybe he was wrong. With UAL er's they will see a lot of NSFA and YBBN unless they change arrival times.

 

[WorldTraveler]

The LAX-SYD flights (which I chose to review) are bookable on United.com and the seatmap shows a 777 with 8 first class suites and 40 Business First at 8 abreast. Those are the configurations for PM UA's 777s. PM CO's 777s have 6 abreast BusinessFirst and no First class. See also Seatguru.com.

IS there really a significant difference between the performance and range of a PW 772ER and a GE or RR powered version on a route of this length?

I believe you have also mentioned that DL has operated cargo-only 772LR flights LAX-SYD. How often does that happen?

DL's scheduled flight time on LAX-SYD for today is 14.55 compared to UA's 14.45 on the 744 and Virgin's 15.05. Next summer, UA has added 25 minutes.

Specific to the discussion here, is it not true that the DL 772ERs are predominantly used from DTW-Asia while the LRs are used from LAX and ATL where the LR's benefits are better used?

 

[metopower]

Thanks for the flt time tonight. I'm flying it. Flt time means nothing .it is alternates. Australia will not allow use of close in airports other then emergencies.Therefore the need for more fuel on days when the weather is bad .Difference in the performance GE vs PW ...GE much better. Difference in the way each airline flys the same route. UA uses a more southern route takes off after us flys faster usually longer by mileage and gets there earlier.But burns way more fuel. We fly constant Mach and vary alt.up and down per winds aloft. VA flys similar to us but at a slower Mach because it is a 300er. Those cargo only flts were early on and have not happened in a while.Also we never used an ER on this route as far as I know.

 

[WorldTraveler]

mentioning the flight times is only to show that DL schedules its LAX-SYD flight for only 10 min longer than UA's 744 flight today and that UA is indeed adding flight time as it switches to the 777; obviously you know how that plays out in real life.

any truth that the Trents have been more reliable than the GE engines on the 777s?

The LR's extra lift clearly is why DL has been able to carry about 20K pounds more cargo per flight than UA has on the 744 and presumably that advantage will continue.

VA carries more cargo per flight than either DL or UA; advantage 773ER.

Have a great flight.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Missing (perhaps) is why the greatest plane maker Ever..........built the Only a/c that can connect ANY two points in the world.
One would think that some airline, somewhere...has a lucrative two points in the world, that they can now fly NS.
Boeing Usually does a lot of analyisis on 'the above', Before they crank up the production line, well aware Jet-A prices can go off the charts.

 

[topDawg]

mentioning the flight times is only to show that DL schedules its LAX-SYD flight for only 10 min longer than UA's 744 flight today and that UA is indeed adding flight time as it switches to the 777; obviously you know how that plays out in real life.

any truth that the Trents have been more reliable than the GE engines on the 777s?

The LR's extra lift clearly is why DL has been able to carry about 20K pounds more cargo per flight than UA has on the 744 and presumably that advantage will continue.

VA carries more cargo per flight than either DL or UA; advantage 773ER.

Have a great flight.

At Delta the GE90 has had some issues. (world wide they have had issues also)
I have no idea what the little 90's(94) numbers look like but the big 90 (110/115) has had turbine issues and gear box issues.

So yes the T800s are more reliable. This helped airbus win the 330 order.

as for the PW4000 vs the GE90/T800, the Pratt 4000 doesn't produce the thrust
The 4000s that are the 100/112 inch fans have been pretty big let downs and missed a good bit of promised performance. The 94 inch fan on the other hand has been a good engine. (the 94 is the 767/747 engine, the 100 is the 330 engine and the 112 is the 777 engine)
This is a big reason why the engine choices on the 330 were between the CF6 and the Trent 700.

 

[WorldTraveler]

thank you for the information, Dawg. You bring a perspective that we need here.

Any truth that another part of the decision to not go with the Pratts on the new 330s is related to other business issues (non-technical) that DL and P&W are having?

 

[topDawg]

thank you for the information, Dawg. You bring a perspective that we need here.

Any truth that another part of the decision to not go with the Pratts on the new 330s is related to other business issues (non-technical) that DL and P&W are having?

for the most part no. The PW4000 isn't a very good engine compared to the CF6 and the T700(for the 330 that is, its a fine 767/747 engine) Pratt never meet its targets with the larger Pratts. They were suspose to had a 72/73K engine for the 330. (which is the max for both the T700 and CF6) and never got it(70K is the highest they go)
A PIP was then suspose to come, and never did. The same thing is a big part of by Rolls kicked Pratts ass on the T7(as did GE, but the T800 was the winner on the airplanes that airlines had a choice)

Delta and Pratt have been having issues since the late 90s. Pratt can't get its act together with engine parts and it has caused PW2000 operators problems over the years. At one point Delta was down 10-15 757s in the late 90s early 2000s (IIRC) due to lack of turbine blades (again IIRC)
It got so bad that Leo has TechOps/Boeing due a study to see how much it would cost per aircraft to re-fleet all 120 757s with RB211s IIRC it was in the 2-5M per plane range. Thus it was quickly tossed.

but no. Delta will go with that is best. It just happens that Pratt hasn't made a good engine since the small 4000s and cant get its act together for support. GE and Rolls on the other hand haven't really had a bad engine. (Pratt is part of IAE, but even the V2500s has its fair share of issues and has high overhaul costs.)


*note, the BR715 is also a big hunk of junk. Its time between overhaul is terrible, or it was with Airtran*