Back to Squawk list
  • 17

Delta Flight 416, JFK to Dakar diverted back to JFK?

Soumis
 
Surfing overnight flights at JFK, I noticed Delta flight 416 turned around halfway to Dakar and is now on final back at JFK. It seems flight 416 code goes JFK to Logan with a A-319 some days, and JFK to Dakar with a 757 other days. Interesting I caught this diversion by luck! (flightaware.com) Plus d'info...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


bigkahuna400
bigkahuna400 1
You are absolutely correct...Apologies...I checked Delta site and it is a 757. Return is DL 216. 8 Hrs 20 mins in 757 would be very bad though!....
PSUAth
i think this is a direct link http://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL416/history/20160619/0240Z/KJFK/GOOY

it seems 416 also goes to boston
canuck44
canuck44 1
Before the introduction of the 777LR Delta flew two 767s to Dakar, one from New York and one from Atlanta. They were then scheduled onward to various locations including CPT, JNB, and NBO depending on days of the week. In Dakar they then had Chinese fire drill in the middle of the night, everyone had to clear the local bureaucrats and then, dragging their carry-on luggage, get on whichever plane was going to their desired destination, the crews changed and away we went. Coming home, if your plane was going to your desired hub you stayed on the plane and customs etc came and checked you out. Fortunately, Delta had folks on the ground to get your luggage in the same general direction as you were headed.

Range is no issue and since there are no ongoing destinations the 757 is perfectly adequate to make the trip....comfort might be another matter. CPT is >6k miles further and NBO 5.1K further.
bigkahuna400
bigkahuna400 -1
No way a 757 makes that distance overseas...JFK-Dakar
ChristianBase
Christian Base 3
Makes it on other days.
seankreilly
seankreilly 3
Maybe they realized that mid flight XD
PSUAth
that's a bit of a whoops.
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 1
It's only 200 miles further than yyz - egll (3100nm), so it's possible, however a B767 woukd make more sense.
30west
30west 2
My thought, it's a low density route that can't support a wide-body. The 757 is the perfect answer for long-thin routes that don't have the demand to make financial sense to use a wide-body.
ChristianBase
Christian Base 0
But isn't a 767 more fuel efficient than a 757 to make the former a better choice?
30west
30west 6
Christian,
Using the optimum cruise level at M.80 for PW powered 757's and 767-300's, the FF is 30% more at FL370 and 35% more at FL390 on the seven-six than the seven-five, i.e. FF per engine (757 vs. 767) FL370 3549 vs. 4638 and at FL390 3243 vs. 4369. Hope that helps. Source: Flight Handbook 757/767 from my airline.

Unless the the demand is there to support the bigger jet, the seven-five is the better choice.
ChristianBase
Christian Base 2
Thanks 30west. Stupid non-pilot question: what's "FF"?
30west
30west 3
I've always been told, there is no such thing as a stupid question!! It's fuel flow in pounds per hour.
ChristianBase
Christian Base 2
Thanks!
weecosse
weecosse 2
Fuel flow.
PSUAth
isn't there something about "cost per seat" as well? a 67 has around 210-225 seats depending on configuration, the 57 has about 180-200. not sure what the "long range" variant is (per seatguru) if your flight is say 75% full, is it worth it to run the 67 if the 67 could be 98%?

Se connecter

Vous n'avez pas de compte? Inscrivez-vous maintenant (gratuitement) pour des fonctionnalités personnalisées, des alertes de vols, et plus encore!
Saviez-vous que le suivi des vols FlightAware est soutenu par la publicité ?
Vous pouvez nous aider à garder FlightAware gratuit en autorisant les annonces de FlightAware.com. Nous travaillons dur pour que notre publicité reste pertinente et discrète afin de créer une expérience formidable. Il est facile et rapide de mettre les annonces en liste blanche sur FlightAware ou d’examiner nos comptes premium.
Abandonner