Rumor: Auckland and Abu Dhabi announcement

[strangiatotheme]

Here is exactly what nycbusdriver said about the A332s in post #35 above:I'm inclined to believe him, since he's nearing retirement age (IIRC, he's posted that he's about 64 years old) and he sits in the left seat of the pmUS A332s when commanding the TLV flights. He's got some first-hand experience on this issue.Unless you're also a pmUS A332 Captain or First Officer, my guess is that nycbusdriver knows more on this precise subject than you or I. If he says the A332s are almost at their limit when flying 5,771 miles westbound from TLV in the winter, then it's pretty clear that 6,959 miles westbound from AUH is beyond their practical range year-round.Recall back in 2007 when US applied for PHL-PEK and told the DOT that although it had no plane in the fleet that could fly the route, if it won the route case, it would acquire two used A340s for that route? After US won that route, the Great Recession intervened and US didn't bother to acquire any used A340s, despite their bargain price (they have no value as used aircraft).http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-airways-launches-bid-for-philadelphia-beijing-flights-52739632.htmlPHL-PEK is 81 miles shorter than PHL-AUH, and if its A332s that began delivery in 2009 (around the start time of PHL-PEK) could not be counted on to fly PHL-PEK (hence the proposal to acquire used A340s), I'm inclined to believe US. And nycbusdriver. With management and an experienced US Captain on the same page, it's really beyond debate that the US A332s lack the range to consistently fly AUH-PHL nonstop. And with 65 777s in the fleet and a bunch of 787-9s on the way, and 20+ A350s on the way, all of which can reliably fly 7,000 miles nonstop into the westbound wind in the winter, it's clear that if AA begins PHL-AUH, the route will not be flown with an A332.

All I'm pointing out is that 1) the US 332s are more capable than what DL operates and 2) there would be a significant payload hit going either way with a theoretical PHLAUH flight. If you're singling out the US 332s as being somehow limited compared to other variants of the same model and vintage, that is incorrect.

Nothing in there contradicting what's already been said about the viability of such a route. In fact, if you'd bother to interpolate between his comment and mine, you'd see that a 20k reduction in payload over an already limited TLV sector means that AUH is in all practical senses out of the question.

The comment about full tanks though is technically incorrect; with full tanks you can fly an A332 about 19 hours nonstop. Fuel capacity is nearly identical to the 340-200/300. The problem is MTOW. You'll transport no more than probably 5 people in the process most likely.

 

[700UW]

More Cuba charters

http://wlrn.org/post/american-airlines-cuban-ambitions


http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wlrn/files/styles/x_large/public/201510/2__1__0.png

 

[MAH4546]

More Cuba charters

http://wlrn.org/post/american-airlines-cuban-ambitions


http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wlrn/files/styles/x_large/public/201510/2__1__0.png

 
Eh, whatever, Delta is flying scheduled from Atlanta. Negotiating a top secret deal...

 

[700UW]

Well guess DL is above international law.

 

[nycbusdriver]

That's true of the -300s but I don't think US went the same way with the -200s. They're Trent-powered and at the time of delivery were, if I'm not mistaken, one of the highest MTOW variants available from Airbus.

 
What I said is true of the -200.  The -300 has a much smaller range.  Just because the -200 was "at the time of delivery" a very capable airplane does not make it capable of every city pair on the planet.  It is a great airplane within its design limits, and that does not include PHL-DBX or PHL-AUH.

 

[nycbusdriver]

The comment about full tanks though is technically incorrect; with full tanks you can fly an A332 about 19 hours nonstop. Fuel capacity is nearly identical to the 340-200/300. The problem is MTOW. You'll transport no more than probably 5 people in the process most likely.

 
I have flown the A330-200 out of TLV with full tanks.  Your information is incorrect by several hours.  Please don't tell me you're a load planner for any flight I may be assigned to.

 

[strangiatotheme]

 
 
What I said is true of the -200.  The -300 has a much smaller range.  Just because the -200 was "at the time of delivery" a very capable airplane does not make it capable of every city pair on the planet.  It is a great airplane within its design limits, and that does not include PHL-DBX or PHL-AUH.

 
Right, I never said that it was.  Just that the -200s that US took were in no way similar to the situation with the -300s which are limited to models of similar vintage.
 

 
I have flown the A330-200 out of TLV with full tanks.  Your information is incorrect by several hours.  Please don't tell me you're a load planner for any flight I may be assigned to.

 
I'm happy to be corrected.  You're saying that all four tanks were completely full, giving you the same fuel load as an A332 that flew 18 and a half hours nonstop in 2013?  Again, not saying that it's doable with pax+bags, just that it's doable period.
 
Edit: and no, not a load planner, so you don't have to worry.
 
Just help me understand this.  If you fill those tanks full, that leaves you with, what, about 4,000 lbs available payload?  I'm not sure what the OEW is specifically so that could vary, but the point remains; it doesn't seem plausible.

 

[FWAAA]

I have flown the A330-200 out of TLV with full tanks.  Your information is incorrect by several hours.  Please don't tell me you're a load planner for any flight I may be assigned to.

That's because you had lotsa passengers and bags (and maybe some freight), and strangiatotheme is talking about an empty ferry flight that DL flew back in May of 2013 from SIN to ATL with a remodeled A332. FAA certification was going to take a couple of weeks, so the four DL pilots at SIN flew it back under an experimental permit. They flew 10,700 miles in about 19 hours, basically aimed it into the jetstream and coasted most of the way. Apparently had about three hours of fuel remaining when they landed. In the link below, their route across the Pacific is shown:

http://talksandtravels.com/discussion/6705673/delta-operated-an-empty-a332-nonstop-from-sin-to-atl

Discussion of why they did it, with first-hand DL pilot account on Flyertalk:

http://www.flyertalk.com/the-gate/blog/24183-why-did-delta-air-lines-fly-an-airbus-a320-200-aircraft-non-stop-from-singapore-to-atlanta.html

With a commercially viable load of passengers and bags, there is no way the US A332s could reliably fly nonstop AUH-PHL, since, as you earlier posted, TLV-PHL is sometimes near the limit. Empty airplanes flying eastbound can do almost anything, as the wasteful DL experiment showed.

 

[topDawg]

 
Not sure what WV Delta operates but IIRC the US birds are the 233T variants.  If the Airbus range charts are any indication, the extra distance to AUH would knock about 20k off of the available payload compared to the TLV flight.  My memory is a bit fuzzy on what those uploads look like so I'll leave it to someone else to speculate on what they'd have to leave behind to make AUH possible.  It's definitely doable with full tanks (don't the 332s have the center tank from the 340 activated?) but of course it might not be able to carry any sort of meaningful payload.
 
Highly unlikely though that they'd be looking at it with the A332 anyhow.

pretty sure the DL 332 fleet is 238T but don't quote me on that. 
 

Good points, but in this case, nycbusdriver confirmed my suspicions in post #35 above, and he should know - he flies the US A332s PHL-TLV a couple times each month. When I wrote my post doubting the ability of the A332s, I was remembering previous posts of his where he has explained the relatively short legs of the US A332s even though they're of recent vintage.

Sorry 
I was just pointing out that the US 332s are probably more capable than the DL 332s. 
but as I said about, I might be wrong on that also. If Delta's have a higher MTOW then they will probably be more capable assuming the runway is long enough and the temps are right. 

 

[A330US]

So any actual updates on the rumor ?

 

[A330US]

I guess i will take a no

 

[eolesen]

Given that UA just killed off KWI and BAH, and DL is killing off DXB, I'm going to go out on a limb and say AUH is just a pipe dream.

The only way it would make sense is if they've managed to get a codewhoring agreement with EY perhaps as a precursor to their joining oneworld, and given how traffic to the Gulf is right now, I just don't see it happening.

 

[A330US]

Given that UA just killed off KWI and BAH, and DL is killing off DXB, I'm going to go out on a limb and say AUH is just a pipe dream.

The only way it would make sense is if they've managed to get a codewhoring agreement with EY perhaps as a precursor to their joining oneworld, and given how traffic to the Gulf is right now, I just don't see it happening.

I agree. However AA Would be the only carrier to the middle east. I am surprised these flights are ending. The DL ATL-DXB flight is ALWAYS sold out going and back

 

[MAH4546]

UA has not discontinued Dubai.

And AUH is not a pipe dream. It's looking very very real. I'm almost certain it's happening.

 

[A330US]

UA has not discontinued Dubai.
And AUH is not a pipe dream. It's looking very very real. I'm almost certain it's happening.

Any clues to starting time frame ? Aircraft type ?