VSXA380X800 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 421 posts, RR: 1 Posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2064 times:
Is really Bigger Better? What do you think about having smaller planes replaced by a bigger aircraft? Would it be better because you can replace 2 767-300 or A330-200 with a A380 and reduce the amount of traffic?.
ZKSUJ From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 7073 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2034 times:
Depends on the route. Like regional routes are better served with samller aircraft so that frequencies can be heightened but longer routes may be a different story, but if I were a pilot ight now, I would like to fly the 747-400 because it is the biggest. Don't ask me why, but it is probably just a male tostesterone 'bigger is better' problem
Caboclo From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 203 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2025 times:
From the pilot's point of view, bigger is definitely better. From the pax end, bigger means a lower ratio of window seats. From the business end, the airlines have a history of doing whatever is profitable, regardless of traffic or anything else; I doubt that trend will change.
767-332ER From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2030 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2000 times:
I beg to differ in that from a passenger's point of view, frequency is more important and then everything else takes a backseat to that. Most passengers do not care about what type of a/c they fly on, whether it is a 747 or an A319, frequency is the name of the game, that's why most carriers' weapon in marketing is to advertise their frequency. From the business end of the spectrum, the airlines have been on a tren that has been revolutionized by the advent of the RJ's and their range, and this trend is that frequency is what they want, frequency is what we'll give 'em with smaller, longer range a/c. Yes, Airbus may be building the A380, however they understand that this need for more frequency it's out there, and that is why aircraft like the A319LR are out there.
Twinjets...if one fails, work the other one twice as hard!!!
Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2686 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1992 times:
Bigger is by no means better in everything. Sure, stretching an aircraft allows for increased passenger capacity, but most of the time it also decreases the airplane's range by a noticeable degree. For example, the 757-200 is capable of flying transatlantic routes and transcontinental U.S. runs nonstop, but the -300, while accomodating many more passengers, has considerably less range than the -200. Likewise, the A330-300 has considerably less range than the -200, and so forth. NW perfectly demonstrates their arrangement of the 757 types and A330 types. The -200s are used on the transcontinental to medium routes, while the -300s are flown on shorter high density routes such as DTW-MSP, MSP-SEA. The A330-300 is used on the European routes exclusively because loads are higher on their European routes and because it lacks the long range needed to cross the Pacific. The A330-200 resolves the range issue because it is lighter and therefore able to fly farther....passenger capacity may not be a factor here because the A333 cannot fly SFO-NRT or SEA-NRT nonstop. I hope this helps.
JumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2464 posts, RR: 45
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1943 times:
If i may Point this out the only advantage of having a bigger aircraft from a safety prospective is that its a lot more stable in the air.
I seen a lot of 737 and smaller aircrafts the wind plays around with them a bit i don't see that when a 74 comes in to land .
Sorry if this is off the main topic
StudentFlyer From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 688 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1945 times:
It depends on economy factors, is it justifiable to use a larger aircraft. If it is the same route, then bigger could be better, because less traffic is present. But also take into account, which has better fuel economy etc. Many would say, that smaller is better because there are more frequency applied to that route.
But, I do prefer larger aircraft personally, as JumboJim mentioned, that they are more stable.
I don't know whether someone claustrophobic would prefer larger aircraft, or would it still be the same, whether it be a 747 or a 767.