Date: 11 Jul 98 03:00:27 From: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: Delphi (email@example.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) References: 1 2 3 4 5
View raw article or MIME structure
H Andrew Chuang <Chuanga@cris.com> writes: >I guess not being tall is not that bad after all. ;-) For Cathay, the >seating in the A330 is a great improvement over the L-1011 which the >A330 replaces. (Cathay's L-1011 was configured with ten-abreast >economy seating instad of the usual nine-abreast one.) Cathay's A330 is >used mostly on regional routes, and East Asians are on the average >smaller. Perhaps, that's why Cathay use the tighter configuration to >maximize its revenue without annoying the majority of its customers. Or perhaps it's aircraft-specific. I flew a CX A330 and 777-200 on the same route, and found the latter superior in comfort (and being tall, seat pitch and I suppose seat configuration are rather important :). If the A330, which is bad, is an improvement over the L1011, then I suppose I should be grateful that the Lockheeds are gone! >P.P.S. Cathay is seeking potential customers to lease the four >B777-200As that it owns. The -200A and the A330 cater to nearly >the identical market sector. Having both in the fleet simply doesn't >make too much sense. Bummer. I'd hate to see those 777s phased out in favor of a (from _my_ POV) inferior aircraft. I thought they'd kind of swap types depending on the load for that route for that day: A330 --> 777-200 --> 747. Ed R.