Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:33 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Organization: Concentric Internet Services References: 1 2 Followups: 1 2
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1996.3039@ohare.Chicago.COM> Niels Sampath (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote: > In article <airliners.1996.3012@ohare.Chicago.COM> > Chuanga@cris.com "H Andrew Chuang" writes: > > -snip- > >Personally, I don't think Airbus should > >stick with the A300/310/330/340 fuselage cross-section for the A340-600X > >(or any long-range aircraft). Do remember, the original A300 was a > >short-haul aircraft! Cabin comfort requirement for a short-haul flight > >is quite different from a long-haul flight. > > I am not sure what you are suggesting. I assume a wider cross-section? > A wider cabin but still twin-aisle config., only means more poor saps > stuck `in the middle of the middle'.... an absolute nightmare for those > concerned. Airbus already markets their `fewer centre seats' as > an `advantage' over the 777. > I do agree that nine abrest and ten abreast are less ideal than eight abreast when the flight is *full*. Airlines do hope every flight is full, but most airlines can realistically fill their planes 60-70% full, annually. Thus, for most flights, the dreadful middle seat of the 2-5-2 configuration is not an issue. 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. Nevertheless, comfort is a very subjective thing. Also, some people will believe what they are told to believe.