EADS Sees US Airways Emerging As a Strong Buyer...

[ref80]

[P]It is true Busdrvr that wide bodies are prefered on long distance flights. However if you think about it a fully loaded wide body is just as cramped as a loaded narrow body. It's just a preception since it is a wide body, you are going to be more comfortably. If your in 1st or business you will most likely feel the benefits otherwise you still feel like your in a herd of cattle. And the herd is just much larger in a larger aircraft, making it a money maker for the company that is using it on long stage length's while packing it full.[/P]

 

[Diesel8]

Re: Boeing versus Airbus and origin of content!


The three main sections of the 777-300ER were joined together recently in the Everett, Wash., factory. The body sections are produced in Japan by a consortium of manufacturers, including Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Fuji Heavy Industries, ShinMaywa and NIPPI.

 

[DCAflyer]

Ref80 said:

It is true Busdrvr that wide bodies are prefered on long distance flights. However if you think about it a fully loaded wide body is just as cramped as a loaded narrow body. It's just a preception since it is a wide body, you are going to be more comfortably. If your in 1st or business you will most likely feel the benefits otherwise you still feel like your in a herd of cattle. And the herd is just much larger in a larger aircraft, making it a money maker for the company that is using it on long stage length's while packing it full.

DCAflyer replies:

In most cases (and in all cases cases which relate to U aircraft) a fully-loaded widebody is still roomier than a fully-loaded narrowbody. In our coach 767 configuration, with 2-3-2 seating, a passenger stands only a one-in-seven chance (14%) of getting a middle seat, as opposed to the 3-3 narrow-body seating, where a coach passenger has a one-in-three chance (33%) of getting a middle seat. And even then, the middle seat passengers in the 767 have a lot more headroom than in the narrow-body aircraft, giving a less cramped feel.

In the case of our A330 aircraft, with 2-4-2 coach configurations, the passengers have only a one-in-four (25%)chance of being middle seated but again, the headroom is greater.

The only wide-body aircraft I am aware of which is more cramped than a typical 3-3 narrow-body, both in configuration and in feel, is the bohemoth B-747, where a coach passeger has a whopping 45% chance of having a middle seat with the 3-5-3 seating configuration.

If you think about it, the 767 has two aisles for 7 seats across, whereas the narrow-body has one aisle for 6 seats across. The A-330 has two aisles for eight seats across. This reduces the possibility of aft-end lav ques and aisle activity and traffic while passengers are trying to sleep. It also allows for greater movement in the cabin while flight attendants are doing meal and beverage services.

The wide-bodies are also more comfortable I believe because they are more resistent to turbulence.

Wide-bodies are preferred for long distance flying for very good reasons.

 

[PHL]

Why not convert a 767 to 4 and 4, making it a single aisle widebody.....then you'd have a whopping 50% chance of getting stuck between 2 seats. You'd also have to ask 3 people to get up if you are in a window seat and have to use the lav. But think of the carrying capacity! 26 rows of coach at 8 seats each is 208! Whoo Hoo - pack 'em in!

 

[AOG-N-IT]

I won't be so bold as to call it a Crystal Ball but my money based on past dealings with Bombardier and previously De Havilland , would be much in favor of the Canadian CRJ famly of products. They build a very hardy design..and then the issue of Logistics always has to play a factor in regard to timely needs being filled..and then planes returning to generating revenue. My past years of dealing with De Havilland and BAE when supporting the DHC-8 and the Jetstream , made it clear to me about filling the gap in time and distance. Bombardier is a Primo Company when it's tasks regard Engineering Assistance and Spare Parts needs. However..U will take the path of least resistance and most immediate gratification...and because the Brazilians will drop thier pants to sell to us. Being able to obtain quicker build slots...and the fact the EMB will be making larger capacity aircraft available sooner , this will dictate U's course of action. The whole ball of wax boils down to what can Brand X do for me the cheapest and quickest? We can suffer through the issues of support and ownership afterwards. As we always seem to do!!!

 

[W:EXCH:INVOL]

With all of this talk about Airbii being second-rate and throw-away and the high down-the-road maint costs, how to the BRAND-NEW unproven sjs fit in? Anyone got a crystal ball for these?

INVOL