kwaigonegin
Colonel
To be fair on almost 90% of an aircraft's flt time, the shades are down anyway especially unless it's a short flight. So nutural sunlight is negligible.
COMAC C919
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
In case you haven't found the meanings yet they're New Midsized Airplane, Cost per Available Seat Mile, Thai Airways, Transatlantic
Some bonus ones,
CASK = Cost per Available Seat Kilometre
GTF = Geared Turbofan, an engine offering but the full name is also a technical feature
LEAP = Leading Edge Aviation Propulsion, an engine offering but everyone calls it LEAP
SG = Singapore
DL = Delta Airlines
B6 = JetBlue
Except that's exactly what's happening with JetBlue.
AC has 33 A220s in service & will get at least 60. It's been used everywhere in AC's network
If you are using AC as evidence that A220 can't fly all the routes economically, you are doing terrible job
JetBlue is not a big enough airline for you? It has replaced A320s with A220s everywhere. Anyone that has looked at JetBlue can tell you A220 can entirely replace A320.
Here is a lesson for you. when you can get same cost with a smaller aircraft, the smaller aircraft is always better, because you can increase frequency and get higher fares from that.
See, A321 beating widebodies on transcon and beating widebodies on TATL routes. So yes, when you have the option of A220 and A320, you pick A220
550 orders and it has not even entered into service. It's huge success by any measure given the amount of investment airbus made.
That's because you are stuck thinking in the old days. XLR is replacing the need for twin aisle aircraft.
Go look in the history. How many routes were flown with widebodies in the days across America have now been replaced by narrowbodies.
AA, UA, AC & B6 all have major orders for XLR exactly to serve TATL markets and certain south American markets. What do you think they will be replacing?
On top of that, B6, EI & TP will also have LRs doing exactly the same thing. Heck B6 has been flying your standard A321NEO from BOS/JFK to LGW for much of last year.
Keep being stuck in times.
Who told its inefficient? If it's inefficient, then why did AC order XLR after already picking MAX over NEO?
Why did UA pick XLR without any prior NEO orders?
Do you understand that fewer seats -> high revenue per seat?
Do you know that UA finds the trip cost of 777s to be about 2x that of 737-900 and it picks 737-900 to do those routes? why does it do that? well you see when you can schedule 2 flights instead of 1 for the same cost, you generate more revenue, because your schedule improves.
i had the same discussion with people all throughout 2018, 2019. People kept thinking they would launch NMA and they never did, because the business case was really weak.
They knew that XLR would kill part of the demand & airbus launching A322 would kill more demand.
7 seat aircraft is just inherently not efficient, because you have 2 aisles for 7 seats. whereas A321 would have 1 aisle for 6 seats.
congratulations, you named 2 routes and 1 of them is easily flyable with A321NEO.
B6 with fly from JFK & BOS to Germany with XLR, so that alone defeats your argument.
UA will have 50 XLRs. I would be shocked if it doesn't get used on routes like EWR to Berlin. Again, I've actually spoke with people in UA about this. Go look up what UA said when it ordered XLRs.
The only airline that kept harping about NMA was DL, because they kept going on and on about widebody comforts. But even they got A330 for that purpose now. Give it another 5 years, DL will also order XLR.
your argument doesn't work here, because the purpose of A321XLR is the ability to serve additional market efficiently while not adding additional fleet type costs.
It's exactly why the aircraft is perfectly for an airline like B6 (and also AA to a smaller extent)
The fact that both UA & AC have also ordered XLR (despite not having NEO previously) just show how efficient it is for that role.
Nah, 787-3 was an old concept that never got any interest and never took off. Shrinking an aircraft always means its less optimized and not competitive. So, that's why for something like C919, expect it to be stretched multiple times until it can match A321NEO
funny part about 787 is that it started off as a 767 replacement but then ballooned into something that killed A330 also. These aircraft all get larger. Just look at what 737 started off as and what it is now.
So my suggestion is creating a 5 seat/row for 110 to 140 seat market that will eventually serve 130 to 160 seats as it gets larger.
And then have C919 eventually serve 165 to 240 seat market
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
The Geared fans issues were just straw that broke the camel’s back known as Go First. It was bound to fail. They are primarily angry as Pratt and Whitney isn’t just refusing them engines it’s also stating that as the Aircraft on which said engines would be used don’t actually belong to Go First they have no reason to supply. Go First’s fleet was leased and just as Go stopped paying Pratt they stopped paying the leasers who are trying to repossess the planes. Go tried to use an arbitration process to claim they still possessed the birds as part of the system but it’s a weak position.
Really from its birth in 05 Go first was in a loosing fight. They hoped to be the Budget airline of India but others took that place. A limited number of destinations didn’t help. Then came changes in the market, the global pandemic supply chain. They were already weak in the books and living off loans and government subsidies. That was going to bite them in the end.
If you have a poor business plan and bad luck on top of bad luck anything can kill you.
Well yeah. The 787 funny enough basically started in the NMA slot. The 787-3 was their attempt to still address that market as a bandaid solution after moving the 787 up to medium sized long haul. Never suggested it worked out, just that the 787-3 was at one point Boeing’s answer for those who wanted an NMA lol.
Is Comac planning to have more configurations of this aircraft that will carry more passengers? The max passenger limit of the current configuration is said to be 174, which is lower than the limit for any Boeing narrowbody series 707, 737, 757, 767, 777 or 787, and lower than the Airbus 320 series. But all those models have multiple series, with some of them having a higher carrying capacity.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
First Boeing 767, 777, 787 are not narrow body’s they are wide body twin jets.
second it’s hard to see them not considering it. However we don’t see any thing that absolutely makes it so.
We know that the CR929 have three concepts 500, 600 and 700 progressing larger in size. It’s likely that 919 will have similar reconfigurations.
the current 919 in max single class Spirit airlines flying horror seating is roughly equivalent to the Boeing 737-7 max or the older NG 737-900er.
However not every airline is a budget carrier packing passengers in like flying sardine cans. As such max capacity is a question of how the airline/ user wants to cater to customers.
the number of passengers aboard can very dramatically based on how the user’s view the aircraft and passengers use case. Most airlines will decide between 174 passengers and 158 passengers the former being budget airlines well the later is a two class configuration with a Business class. Some users may only seat 8 passengers. Comac has made a clear case that it wants to offer it’s of business jet family, we already see one prototype of the type in the form of the CBJ21.
Corporate and government jets can very in seating configurations from budget carrier to flying palace with all the comforts of the forbidden city. A few airlines in the world fly as all business class configurations where in the passenger volume for such an aircraft being in the few dozen. More complicated is when you start factoring in freighter versions which can range from pure Cargo to mixed Combi types.
second it’s hard to see them not considering it. However we don’t see any thing that absolutely makes it so.
We know that the CR929 have three concepts 500, 600 and 700 progressing larger in size. It’s likely that 919 will have similar reconfigurations.
the current 919 in max single class Spirit airlines flying horror seating is roughly equivalent to the Boeing 737-7 max or the older NG 737-900er.
However not every airline is a budget carrier packing passengers in like flying sardine cans. As such max capacity is a question of how the airline/ user wants to cater to customers.
the number of passengers aboard can very dramatically based on how the user’s view the aircraft and passengers use case. Most airlines will decide between 174 passengers and 158 passengers the former being budget airlines well the later is a two class configuration with a Business class. Some users may only seat 8 passengers. Comac has made a clear case that it wants to offer it’s of business jet family, we already see one prototype of the type in the form of the CBJ21.
Corporate and government jets can very in seating configurations from budget carrier to flying palace with all the comforts of the forbidden city. A few airlines in the world fly as all business class configurations where in the passenger volume for such an aircraft being in the few dozen. More complicated is when you start factoring in freighter versions which can range from pure Cargo to mixed Combi types.
I really like Sam Chui's videos in general and I was pleasantly surprised (but not hugely surprised) to see him upload a video of a trip on the C919.
It seems like its a pretty comfy cabin!
yes. i was actually waiting for his review. he is one of the most famous aviation enthusiast in the world.
interiors , cabin and he specifically mentioned Noise level is better than Boeing.
COMAC has a winner in their hands. C919 could be the game changer.