Re: A330/340 vs. B777

Date:         21 Jan 97 01:32:24 
From:         niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath)
Organization: i b4 e xcept after c
References:   1 2 3 4 5
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1997.210@ohare.Chicago.COM>
           kls@ohare.Chicago.COM "Karl Swartz" writes:

>>>According to Boeing, the standard economy
>>>seat on the B747 and B777 is 1.5 inches wider than than the standard
>>>economy seat on the A300/310/330/340.
>>                     ^^^^^^^^
>>Oh? Nice of Boeing to skew the figures with all those short range 300s/310s
>
>American just started flying the A300-600 JFK-LHR.  Few would consider
>that a short-range route.  All of Delta's (ex-Pan Am) A310s were used
>for even longer trans-Atlantic routes.  While they certainly don't
>have the range of a 747-400 or A340, the A300 and A310 are not exactly
>short-range aircraft in their latest forms.

	Your point is taken, but the A300/310 are still not in the same
class as the 777/747 hence the compilation given still makes me highly
suspicious that the seat width figures are skewed. Why did Boeing not
include the 767 (and 757, which in some all-economy configs., and we are
talking -economy- seats,  carries more than the 767)? Both are used
trans-Atlantic. Mind you , my hatred of the middle/middle seat -does-
make me a 767 fan. B^) My opinion: if it has twin-aisles, the narrower
the fuselage cross-section the better. So 767>A330>777.

	Wasn't there once mention here of an unusual seating arrangement
by Gulf Air(?) with a single row of seats in the middle? I also
remember , before the A320 went into service that there was talk of
offering it as twin aisle with a 2-1-2 arrangement, albiet with
(cough) -narrow- aisles.

--
-Niels