From: Joe Curry <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 21 Jul 96 13:29:33 References: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
In message <airliners.1996.1373@ohare.Chicago.COM> Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) writes: > One last comment concerning the A3XX. I used to think it was unwise for > Airbus to spend US$8-12 billion on the A3XX to compete with the B747X. Now, > I'm not sure about it. The Airbus design is capable of being stretched to > carry some 600-700 passengers. I doubt the Boeing can do anything further > than the 550-passenger B747-600. There are problems operating aircraft of these proportions. You need the passengers to fill them. Past experience has shown that larger aircraft mean less frequent flights and loss of jobs in flight and cabin. A five times a week flight has to be reduced to two a week. Passengers might be forced to fly from a distant airport. Convenience to pax is paramount. Aircraft fly because people want this convenience. Corporate decisions often fail because they have not taken pax convenience into account. -- email@example.com _|_ Joe Curry --o--O--o-- >From the shadow of North Berwick Law in East Lothian,"Bonnie Scotland" Edinburgh Airport is the UK's fastest growing.Insist on flights to EDI. Museum of Flight.http://www.nms.ac.uk.Inventory includes the Comet 4c.