More 737-900's For Delta
Apr 18, 2017, 7:42 am
#91
Join Date: May 2015
Location: DCA
Programs: AA EXP, DL FO, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 6,712
Best comment I've seen in weeks. 😂 😂 😂
Apr 18, 2017, 7:53 am
#92
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Paradise
Posts: 1,617
What is clear:
737, 747, and 757 all have 17" seats. The 787 has 17" seats except for a few JAL and ANA planes. The 777 is now transitioning to mostly 17" seats.
A320, A330, A340, and A350 all have 18" seats except for a few very oddball airlines like Air Caraďbes.
This is not a trend that can be attributed to airlines just happening to always put 1" narrower seats on Boeings. Boeing designs their planes for narrower seats.
Boeing thought of the consumer with both the 777/787 and increased width. It just so happens airlines found they could cram a extra seat in and people wouldn't complain. The 777 was designed and introduced with 9 across seating and it wasn't until the oil explosion in late 2008, that airlines looked to squeeze in a extra seat to reduce costs. The 787 was designed and firmed in 2004, well ahead of any 10 abreast vision.
Blame the airlines.
Apr 18, 2017, 7:56 am
#93
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,394
The only thing that would seemingly fix the runway requirements of a MAX10 would be if they installed catapults like they have on aircraft carriers!
Apr 18, 2017, 9:55 am
#94
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: LIT
Programs: Blinged Out
Posts: 716
The MAX-10 will need a small wheel on the tail at this rate.
Last edited by SeaHawg; Apr 18, 2017 at 10:02 am
Apr 18, 2017, 10:42 am
#95
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: HH Gold, AA Gold
Posts: 10,458
But this is not the plane's fault. DL decided how to CONFIGURE it. The 737 is a perfectly good plane, but DL decided to cram as many seats as possible in the given space. Yes, the Airbus is wider and that definitely helps.
Apr 18, 2017, 11:47 am
#97
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Maryland
Programs: DL-Diamond, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 459
Apr 18, 2017, 11:48 am
#98
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: LON, PDX
Programs: DL PM, AS MVP 75K, HH/SPG/MR Gold, Amex Plat, PRG, CSR
Posts: 2,064
And considering that the 737 and 747 are still on sale I think that it makes perfect sense to compare them to Airbuses that are also currently on sale. I care what airlines are buying, not when it was desinged. Just because a Boeing is an older design does not make it more comfortable for me. It's Boeing's own fault that they're selling ancient airframes. I wish that Boeing would build new fuselages and ditch the 737's ancient bones.
Boeing thought of the consumer with both the 777/787 and increased width. It just so happens airlines found they could cram a extra seat in and people wouldn't complain. The 777 was designed and introduced with 9 across seating and it wasn't until the oil explosion in late 2008, that airlines looked to squeeze in a extra seat to reduce costs. The 787 was designed and firmed in 2004, well ahead of any 10 abreast vision.
Blame the airlines.
Blame the airlines.
Your claim since the that the 787 was firmed in 2004 that it was not designed with fuel efficiency and CASM in mind is pure insanity, otherwise they wouldn't have built it out of composites and would have developed the Sonic Cruiser instead.
Airbus, on the other hand, has shown a firm commitment to 18" seats best shown by the A320 family where there is no option for airlines to dictate seat width. The A330/340 and A350 have also clearly been designed specifically for 18" seats whereas the 777 and 787 have been designed for 17" seats and the (somewhat) plausible deniability that they were intended to have 18.5" seats.
Apr 18, 2017, 11:50 am
#99
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: LON, PDX
Programs: DL PM, AS MVP 75K, HH/SPG/MR Gold, Amex Plat, PRG, CSR
Posts: 2,064
Now that might actually make them worth flying @:-)
Apr 18, 2017, 12:29 pm
#100
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SJC
Programs: DL PM MM, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 3,276
Apr 18, 2017, 12:58 pm
#101
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: LAX/BUR, RDU
Programs: DL SM, AAdvantage, SPG
Posts: 1,360
Apr 18, 2017, 1:05 pm
#102
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: LON, PDX
Programs: DL PM, AS MVP 75K, HH/SPG/MR Gold, Amex Plat, PRG, CSR
Posts: 2,064
Apr 18, 2017, 1:10 pm
#103
Join Date: May 2015
Location: DCA
Programs: AA EXP, DL FO, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 6,712
739ER: 24,000–27,000 lbf
MAX 10X: 28,690-29,320 lbf
757(P&W): 36,600–42,600 lbf
Last edited by KDCAflyer; Apr 18, 2017 at 1:51 pm
Apr 18, 2017, 2:00 pm
#104
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Paradise
Posts: 1,617
And considering that the 737 and 747 are still on sale I think that it makes perfect sense to compare them to Airbuses that are also currently on sale. I care what airlines are buying, not when it was desinged. Just because a Boeing is an older design does not make it more comfortable for me. It's Boeing's own fault that they're selling ancient airframes. I wish that Boeing would build new fuselages and ditch the 737's ancient bones.
You cannot possibly think that Boeing didn't know full well that the 777 could accommodate 10-across and that the 787 could accommodate 9-across. After all in those configurations those planes have the same 17" seat width that Boeing has been selling for decades. They were cleverly designed to be trotted out with idealized cabin configurations but always intended to at least be able to be operated with high-density 17" configurations.
Your claim since the that the 787 was firmed in 2004 that it was not designed with fuel efficiency and CASM in mind is pure insanity, otherwise they wouldn't have built it out of composites and would have developed the Sonic Cruiser instead.
Airbus, on the other hand, has shown a firm commitment to 18" seats best shown by the A320 family where there is no option for airlines to dictate seat width. The A330/340 and A350 have also clearly been designed specifically for 18" seats whereas the 777 and 787 have been designed for 17" seats and the (somewhat) plausible deniability that they were intended to have 18.5" seats.
Your claim since the that the 787 was firmed in 2004 that it was not designed with fuel efficiency and CASM in mind is pure insanity, otherwise they wouldn't have built it out of composites and would have developed the Sonic Cruiser instead.
Airbus, on the other hand, has shown a firm commitment to 18" seats best shown by the A320 family where there is no option for airlines to dictate seat width. The A330/340 and A350 have also clearly been designed specifically for 18" seats whereas the 777 and 787 have been designed for 17" seats and the (somewhat) plausible deniability that they were intended to have 18.5" seats.
Who said anything about the 787 not being designed for efficiency? I said it was designed and finalized before any airline had dreamed about squeezing extra seats in. It was also designed as a 767 replacement which only seats 7 to begin with.
Knowing what it could do and intending it are two different things. If that was the case, Boeing should have offered it from the get-go and make their CASM look even more fantastic. Think of the 15 wasted years from the introduction of the 777 having 19.5" seats.
Either way, everyone has choices as a consumer. If you can't fit properly in a 17" seat, then you buy first or choose another airline that best accommodates you.
Apr 18, 2017, 2:28 pm
#105
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando, FL Area
Programs: Delta SkySponge ExtraAbsorbent, SPG Gold
Posts: 29,988
T
And the passengers of Lauda Air Flight 004 died in vain on a 767 due to thrust reverser design flaws and the passengers of United Airlines Flight 585 and USAir Flight 427 died in vain on 737s due to poor rudder design. The A330's pitot tubes have been fixed, just like the 767's thrust reversers and the 737's rudder. So to directly answer the question about how many more high altitude Airbus stalls we will tolerate (or have): none.
There are innumerable design flaws that can be plucked from history for either brand. Thankfully both manufactures produce incredibly safe planes without statistically significant differences in widebody incidents or hull loses. I understand that you may feel emotionally and anecdotally that you prefer the pilot-plane interface in a Boeing, but statically there is no justification. I could equally understand somebody who felt emotionally that they preferred Airbus's more constrained approach since most accidents are still caused by human error, yet again such a feeling is not backed up by evidence.
And the passengers of Lauda Air Flight 004 died in vain on a 767 due to thrust reverser design flaws and the passengers of United Airlines Flight 585 and USAir Flight 427 died in vain on 737s due to poor rudder design. The A330's pitot tubes have been fixed, just like the 767's thrust reversers and the 737's rudder. So to directly answer the question about how many more high altitude Airbus stalls we will tolerate (or have): none.
There are innumerable design flaws that can be plucked from history for either brand. Thankfully both manufactures produce incredibly safe planes without statistically significant differences in widebody incidents or hull loses. I understand that you may feel emotionally and anecdotally that you prefer the pilot-plane interface in a Boeing, but statically there is no justification. I could equally understand somebody who felt emotionally that they preferred Airbus's more constrained approach since most accidents are still caused by human error, yet again such a feeling is not backed up by evidence.