Re: UA A321 ?

Date:         30 Nov 98 03:07:42 
From:         JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>
References:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Next article
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.