sciing
in service - 1 year
Enter your message here...
Posts: 2,502
|
Post by sciing on Jun 18, 2019 18:34:32 GMT 1
Just need to add one more pair of doors, evacuation issue sorted. Same as Boeing did on Ryanair 737 MAX 200. I don't see the issue as being that simple. Adding a pair of doors also requires clearing the exit, which makes it all the more difficult to cram even more pax into the aircraft ; perhaps you remember that to make the new A321neo fuselage, Airbus actually suppressed one pair of doors ? Could they just widen existing exits ? 110 per door is the maximum for the largest type A. So another additional exit seems to be necessary.
|
|
|
Post by kevin5345179 on Jul 16, 2019 8:48:30 GMT 1
It'll be cool to know the fuel stat for a330neo unfortunately it is behind paywall
|
|
|
Post by kevin5345179 on Jul 17, 2019 7:03:19 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Jul 17, 2019 8:21:54 GMT 1
I have heard from inside a big airline that they consider the A330neo to be priced too expensive compared to the "way better" A350. So they opted for the A350. I have the feeling that Airbus is pricing the A330neo a little softer now.
|
|
|
Post by kevin5345179 on Jul 17, 2019 18:51:25 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marlibu on Jul 18, 2019 0:46:44 GMT 1
I have heard from inside a big airline that they consider the A330neo to be priced too expensive compared to the "way better" A350. So they opted for the A350. I have the feeling that Airbus is pricing the A330neo a little softer now. That's an interesting comment. Airbus wont mind customers upgauging...
|
|
sutrakhk
in Convoy en route to Toulouse
Posts: 64
|
Post by sutrakhk on Jul 18, 2019 5:25:35 GMT 1
If the fuel burn is almost the same as 767-300ER, does it mean the A330-900neo burn less than 787-9?
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Jul 18, 2019 8:22:47 GMT 1
That's not neccessarily what they did. They've ordered "another" family for that specific need below the A350.
|
|
|
Post by fanairbus on Jul 18, 2019 8:50:31 GMT 1
Wow I often wonder why measures such as gallons are used still. I recall a B767 landing in Canadian fields years ago because of fuelling using the 'wrong' gallon measure(!). Is there any progress to use a measure based on its general use worldwide and its constancy? In this respect would litres be a better, safer measure? On a similar theme but away from aircraft, I'd love paper for company use to be standardized worldwide. It's farcical having the US & Canada three hole different size paper
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Jul 18, 2019 9:16:23 GMT 1
Wow I often wonder why measures such as gallons are used still. I recall a B767 landing in Canadian fields years ago because of fuelling using the 'wrong' gallon measure(!). Is there any progress to use a measure based on its general use worldwide and its constancy? In this respect would litres be a better, safer measure? On a similar theme but away from aircraft, I'd love paper for company use to be standardized worldwide. It's farcical having the US & Canada three hole different size paper It is the USA. It must be a genetic brain defect when born there. In regards to the 767 landing at Gimli, pounds were used instead of the Kg. Regulation says to use Kg while refueling, but the guys in the USA were still converting to pounds and in this case were using the same number of pounds as Kg ordered.
|
|