seven13 wrote
The next puzzle is the A340 and the A350. Now if you can figure how are they connected?
1. The Siberian airspace failed thus cancellation of the last 5 A333s.
2. PR acquired more A340 to be a stop gap measure/ in lieu of the 5 canceled once the A350 can be delivered?
Currently there's only 1 undisclosed buyer of the A350. Unless EY will lend/lease some of its ordered A350s to PR.
Well I'm not really good with the technical aspect but I'm thinking, the A350 will be able to seat more pax or equal to A330 but less than the B777 unlike the 787 which is smaller compared to A350/A330. Range wise, it's almost the same.
----------------------
I have another question though. I was checking Airbus' website and was comparing the A320 and A321 in terms of cabin width. They're basically the same but what puzzles me is the aisle of the A321 is much smaller than the A320. When wheeling out of food trolley, on an A320, a passenger can squeeze on the side but on an A321, it's impossible. Is someone able to provide an explanation? The best I can think of is the width of the chairs on the A321 are wider by a little bit than the A320.
I guess they are the same. It could be the seat design. Both the 320 and the 321 are configured at 18". The A321 is however more cramp than the A320 which has better legroom at 31.
then it'll bypass the monoclass A330 if that happens.
And that means you have wider seat when you ride the A320 or the A321 than the mono A330. A 16.7 seat is not good for long haul because of potentially developing Deep vein thrombosis (DVT). You may have to sit still on that configuration. But majority of the Filipinos are small size 5'4"s so these might be ok, but its not gonna work out for me and those who may have longer legs and above that height.
By the way, long haul standard seat width is 18. The 787 at 9 has 17.5. I will gladly not take this plane in excess of 6 hours. The 350 however is better at 18. Most of the 787 operators have it at 8 (2-4-2) abreast.
Solblanc wrote
Syd? They got rights? I thought only melbourne's second airport had space under the bilateral.
Yes. But at most they can have is 3x a week rather than daily which they requested for the A330. Under the expanded Air agreement with Australia, there is a cap which applies to all Australian major airports. Services to secondary airports like Avalon Airport in Melbourne, are unrestricted. Meaning, they can fly daily there. But what airline would want to fly in Avalon when the market is there in Tullamarine?
Under the new arrangements, Australia-based airlines and Philippine-based airlines are currently able to offer up to 6,000 seats each way per week between major Australian destinations (Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and/or Sydney) and Manila and/or Clark in the Philippines. PAL already got the 4,500 seats.
Making Sense
Locked
