Originally Posted by
PLeblond
Closer to home, at a Canadian aircraft manufacturer that shall not be named, a team needed to be in Wichita to solve important issues. Montreal to Wichita on commercial is the better part of a day's travel were using one of the jets was same day back and forth. Same team with same priorities needing to go to Toronto would fly commercial.
When flights get longer the relative time savings of private drop significantly, and the relative cost increases (a TATL capable jet costs between $6k and $9k per hour to operate). So on say YUL-CDG an employe would save maybe 3 hours on a 7-hour trip. For a 7x cost difference.
And most of those I know who work for companies with private jets capable of TATL flights, they much prefer a pod on a widebody over the corporate jet as the corporate config is basically a small recliner style seat or a couch.
Much like everything else in the world, long flights on Private jets look a lot better on Instaface than they are in reality.
As for the PC-12…love those!!! I’m totally in.
We have unique requirements for visiting austere airfields (e.g. ice and gravel strips) hence the PC-12 (we don't have the budget for a 737-200) and yes, we fly commercial for TATL or even cross country unless we are able to tag along on a repositioning trip.
Honestly I don't think I'd mind flying a PC-12 across the pond with a scenic detour in Greenland and Iceland but I'm speaking from a plane nerd perspective.
My point is, it's down to airlines configuration, the tube size play a role but the context is also important. A330 and 767 are undeniably best for 8 and 7 abreast economy class config, but it doesn't translate to a better experience in J.
Other example is SQ who has the same short haul product on their A350 and 787, their J pod is optimized for the 787, there are a lot of wasted space in J, having a slightly wider tube doesn't translate to better J on the A350. (Economy class on the other hand is slightly better though)