DL plans MCO-GRU service

[WorldTraveler]

Dawg can tell us why he thinks not using the 330 to Brazil before but Airbus' own website shows the current DL 330s with usual cargo and full passenger loads doesn't work from GRU. Given that Rio is hosting the Olympics the extra capacity to GIG makes sense
The 330 has served EZE

Dawg can tell us which aircraft are used after they start

 

[Kev3188]

...It was wrong then and its wrong now.

What's wrong with the 'Bus?

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

What's wrong with the 'Bus?

Nothing wrong with the 'Bus.  I believe Dawg was referring to WT (WTs statements about the NW A330 inability to be used on flights to South America).

 

[eolesen]

What's wrong with the 'Bus?

I don't particularly like the A330, but I don't think that was the jist of the comment.

It sounded more to me that what was wrong was the assertion that the pm-NW aircraft couldn't fly to Brasil because of technical issues. Sounds like it was just a deliberate decision not to fly them there, as opposed to a technical limit, and what Dawg said is that they will be scheduled there eventually if not already...

 

[Kev3188]

Ah. Makes sense. I guess I read it wrong.

Thanks guys!

 

[WorldTraveler]

the PMNW 333s cannot operate without restrictions between ATL-GRU unless Airbus is willing to raise the MTOW on them and unless the engine thrust can be increased.

Not only would the current 333 operate above the MTOW of the 333s as delivered to NW due to the higher baggage limits to/from Brazil (the only major country that allows at least 2 70 pound bags for every passenger) but GRU's elevation is higher than most other major global cities.

again, DL has never operated the 330 to/from GRU but has the 332 to EZE. The 333 has been used to LIM which is quite a bit shorter but has heavy cargo loads.

 

[topDawg]

GRU is at 2500 feet of elevation and that is why the current 330s don't work GIG is at sea level, has a longer runway and doesn't need the new 330s

You still don't know what you are talking about. Post it all you want to post it. Doesn't make it right. 
 
 

What's wrong with the 'Bus?

nothing. Great airplane. 
 
edit: strike that. Great airplane minus that damn barking dog. 
 
Its the poster who doesn't know what he is talking about. 
 

the PMNW 333s cannot operate without restrictions between ATL-GRU unless Airbus is willing to raise the MTOW on them and unless the engine thrust can be increased.

Ah. Just increase the MTOW eh? 
 
You have no idea what you are talking about and it is painfully clear. 
 

Not only would the current 333 operate above the MTOW of the 333s as delivered to NW due to the higher baggage limits to/from Brazil (the only major country that allows at least 2 70 pound bags for every passenger) but GRU's elevation is higher than most other major global cities.

please post data that says that. 
 

again, DL has never operated the 330 to/from GRU but has the 332 to EZE. The 333 has been used to LIM which is quite a bit shorter but has heavy cargo loads.

That has nothing to do with anything. Delta hasn't ever used a 744 to fly ATL-MCN but doesn't mean the airplane can't do it. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

yes, I do know what I am talking about.

you are bemoaning the fact that DL is not using an aircraft that they know won't work to/from Brazil because 1. Brazil has far heavier baggage weights on top of being a strong cargo market and 2. the PMNW 330s do not have high enough thrust engines to avoid taking payload restrictions on dept. from GRU.

Performance charts for Airbus aircraft are on Airbus' site. You should know where to find them if you are willing to make statements about what the aircraft can do. DL has its own charts based on its own configuration but they will be more, not less, restrictive than Airbus'

GIG is not an issue with the engines because it is at sea level and has runways as long as most other cities where the 333 operates. GRU is twice as high as ATL which is already one of the highest altitude major int'l cities on DL's network.

DL has increased the MTOW of the PMNW 332s which is what Airbus said they would offer and it is very possible that DL has or will do the same for the PMNW 333s.

Let me know when the first DL 333s operate to/from Brazil, the ship number for those, and the MTOW on those aircraft.

 

[jimntx]

. 
 
That has nothing to do with anything. Delta hasn't ever used a 744 to fly ATL-MCN but doesn't mean the airplane can't do it. 

Well, AA doesn't use the 773 on DFW-GRK (Killeen, TX) either; so that proves the assertion that the DL AB330's can't do Brazil.  Oh, and DL has profit sharing also.  So there.

 

[WorldTraveler]

feel free to set up straw men so I can knock them down.

DL doesn't use the 333s to Brazil because they don't have the operational capabilities to serve GRU or the MTOW to serve GIG without restriction.

EZE is a longer route than GRU and yet has "normal" baggage allowances and DL has used the 330 there.
The similarly sized 764 has been used at all of GIG, GRU, and EZE. The 330 has never been scheduled by DL at GRU or GIG so far as I know.

once again, the ship number and MTOW will be known when the first flights operate.

 

[topDawg]

yes, I do know what I am talking about.

you are bemoaning the fact that DL is not using an aircraft that they know won't work to/from Brazil because 1. Brazil has far heavier baggage weights on top of being a strong cargo market and 2. the PMNW 330s do not have high enough thrust engines to avoid taking payload restrictions on dept. from GRU.

Performance charts for Airbus aircraft are on Airbus' site. You should know where to find them if you are willing to make statements about what the aircraft can do. DL has its own charts based on its own configuration but they will be more, not less, restrictive than Airbus'

GIG is not an issue with the engines because it is at sea level and has runways as long as most other cities where the 333 operates. GRU is twice as high as ATL which is already one of the highest altitude major int'l cities on DL's network.

DL has increased the MTOW of the PMNW 332s which is what Airbus said they would offer and it is very possible that DL has or will do the same for the PMNW 333s.

Let me know when the first DL 333s operate to/from Brazil, the ship number for those, and the MTOW on those aircraft.

just stop. You are proving you don't know what you are talking about again. You need to learn the differences between the non-242T airplanes and the 242T airplanes. It isn't a simple paper work change.  

 

[topDawg]

Well, AA doesn't use the 773 on DFW-GRK (Killeen, TX) either; so that proves the assertion that the DL AB330's can't do Brazil.  Oh, and DL has profit sharing also.  So there.

Delta wins again! 
 
I don't know how you live your life not being a part of the best thing in the world Jim. Delta controls the weather, airplane range heck I bet God him self gets his orders from Atlanta. 

 

[700UW]

When US got the 333s a year later we modded them in-house to increase maximum takeoff weight.

Involved a lot of mods, including landing gear change etc....

 

[WorldTraveler]

just stop. You are proving you don't know what you are talking about again. You need to learn the differences between the non-242T airplanes and the 242T airplanes. It isn't a simple paper work change.

I'm well aware that it is a paperwork change and I said as much but it was one that wasn't available from Airbus until recently and it also doesn't increase the thrust of the engines.

and as 700 noted, not all 330s were eligible for just a paperwork upgrade. Some had heavier landing gear and brakes from the factory. and I don't think US' 330s are 242T models because Airbus just provided the option with the factory build 242T models.

DL operates longer sectors than ATL-Brazil on the 333 (SEA-ICN, ATL-FCO) but SEA-ICN is taking significant payload restrictions right now.

All of those cities above or lower altitude than ATL-GRU. it is possible that with the runway extension at GRU, the numbers work now but they didn't for years.

DL intentionally did not use the 330 at GRU because of the MTOW issue.

DL has wanted to have a single ~300 passenger aircraft on ATL-GRU for years and the 77ER/LR has come to GRU on more than one occasion but the 330 has not.

When you factor in the reduction from one ATL-GRU to two but on a larger aircraft as well as the addition of MCO-GRU, DL's GRU capacity is fairly constant except from the SE. DL is reducing DTW-GRU as well as the total number of seats to BSB which are partially offset by the larger 330 to GIG.
Feel free to verify the baggage weights but they are higher per passenger to/from Brazil than from other countries.

My statement above is completely correct. The only way that the 333 works to/from Brazil is by increasing the takeoff weight.


and you will also note - if you care to look - that DL is sending the 333 to MUC which I also believe it has never been used for - although IIRC the 332 has been used there. MUC is a couple hundred feet higher than ATL but not as high as GRU and again the only reason DL can do that now is because of the higher MTOW.

FRA also will get the 333 from ATL.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

just stop. You are proving you don't know what you are talking about again. You need to learn the differences between the non-242T airplanes and the 242T airplanes. It isn't a simple paper work change.  

 

I'm well aware that it is a paperwork change and I said as much but it was one that wasn't available from Airbus until recently and it also doesn't increase the thrust of the engines.

 
Priceless.