Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:42 From: JF Mezei <email@example.com> References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
View raw article or MIME structure
Karl Swartz wrote: > The key is that the nominal capacity for an airliner typically refers to > a two-class config, or three-class for long-range aircraft. Airline > customers don't usually care about the "pack 'em in" config with as many > seats as you can stuff on the plane, though this is usualy cited > separately as a charter or inclusive tour config for those sorts of > operators. However, with quality cutting trends, one should be aware of the "worse case scenario" on an airline's particular fleet. For instance, if Plane A's config is "typically" 150 but can legally be up to 300, and plane B's config is "typically" 150 but can legally be up to 200, then there are some conclusions to be drawn: An airline operating plane A may be more tempted to cut quality/seat pitch further since its planes can do it and adding a few more seats won't push the plane near its limit. Another aspect is that when configured for 150 seats, Aircraft A might actually be more secure because of greater exit capacity compared to Aircraft B configured with same number of seats. Also, an aircraft capable of really packing them in is likely to be popular with charter carriers and may earn a poor reputation. "I flew in a 757 once with charter-air, and it was god awfull, so I'll avoid scheduled-air's 757s" syndrome for many who don't realise how much flexibility airlines have in configuring the interior.