Originally Posted by
BostonPlanesAndTrains
Currently on DL1059 SLC-BOS. The GA just made an announcement about that the flight is "payload optimized". They can't gate check any items so they keep on making the announcement. Delta, that is why you shouldn't fly a horrible A320 on the route.
FWIW you probably got a 320 with the small motors vs one with the bigger motors.
The issue is NW ordered A320s with the CFM56-5A1s (~ half the fleet) and the others with CFM56-5A2s The 5A2s have able 2K more thrust than the 5A1 engine. While that not might seem like a lot, for SLC which is hot and high it is.
Why DL can't change the trust plug and make them all 5A1s is a great question I can't answer. As far as I know it can be done but I'm guess it might have something to do with the fact those engines are sent out of house for overhaul and the power-by-the-hour agreement NWA signed doesn't allow it. Of the CFM56-5A is different from the CFM56-5B and CFM56-7B engines.
Originally Posted by
GagaPilot
Haven't seen many Domestic Flights referred to as "Payload Optimized" before. This is common on ultra long haul international (JNB, SYD, formerly DXB) and can be a reason why the flights commonly go out with seats to spare (can have a significant impact to Non-Revs). My guess is it was critical some out of the ordinary cargo was needed to be carried on this route.
It happens to the 320 fleet a good bit, again goes back to NW not going with the CFM56-5B engine over the CFM56-5A engine on all but the oldest 320s (when the 5B wasn't around)
Originally Posted by
Often1
'320's (and '319's) routinely fly TCON's on DL and other carriers and that's the way things are and will remain. The days of flying excess capacity are long gone.
Once in a great while, this will result in weight restrictions before loading and that's a bit of a hassle. Enroute, maybe a fuel diversion and a bit of a greater hassle.
But, that's better than losing a frequency which is the alternative.
It isn't really about overcapacity or not. Both the 738 and 320 are more than capable doing transcons. The issue here is the motors and weight packages on the aircraft.
I was on a new A319 from MSP-BZN that was payload optimized a couple of months ago. No cabin baggage could be checked, it all had to fit in the cabin. Weird given the relatively short distance.
Do the few added seats to the new A319/A320 configuration make this more commonplace?
A 319? thats odd. That plane should have plenty of legs to do that route......
(DL's A319s have the same issue as the 320, 23K is the highest thrust you can go on the CFM56-5A for the 319 motors (5A3 and 5A4) the CFM56-5B7, which is what AA has on the few nAAtive birds are 27K motors. That allows them to be at full MTOW package. Its basically like the 73W fleet at DL, pocket rockets.)
Originally Posted by
HDQDD
"Payload Optimized" = euphemism for "overweight"?
Sometimes. Sometimes it can be other issues. IIRC when the 764 did ATL-DKR-JNB it was always payload optimized but I think it had more to do with the 764 having a somewhat small window for the CG because the plane is so long.
Originally Posted by
mrbratty
incorrect! Dl does not use a319/320 for transcon..they use 757/767.thank you.
no that isn't incorrect.
DL uses the 737/757/767/777/320/330 for transcons. At one point on of the longer routes in the system (LAX-TPA) was a 320. Went 737 once AA showed up on the route. (and 2x daily at times)