Sponsor Message:
Travel Polls & Prefs Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is Bigger Better? Your Views  
User currently offlineVSXA380X800 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 421 posts, RR: 1
Posted (10 years 1 month 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2200 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?.


Tell me what you think.



Donovan


P.S. This doesn't only apply to the A380


4 decks 4 engines 4 long haul
6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineZKSUJ From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 7110 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2170 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  Big grin

User currently offlineCaboclo From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 203 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2161 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.


Freight dogs have more fun
User currently offline767-332ER From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2030 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2136 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!!!
User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2691 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2128 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.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2465 posts, RR: 44
Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2079 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



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineStudentFlyer From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 688 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2081 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.

Regards,
AK


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Your Views/opinions About ATL posted Tue Aug 15 2006 19:52:01 by 767-332ER
Your Views On Excel Airlines posted Tue Jul 11 2006 10:42:59 by ABfemme
What Are Your Views :viking Airlines posted Mon Jul 10 2006 20:40:02 by Samair
Your Views On ATA Airlines posted Sun May 7 2006 23:08:14 by N808NWatMSP
Your Views On Virgin Atlantic posted Thu Apr 13 2006 20:49:59 by Akeytravel
Excel Airline - Your Views? posted Tue Jan 17 2006 12:37:01 by ABfemme
Egyptair - Your Views? posted Sat Nov 26 2005 01:10:32 by Zoheb
Self Service Check-in Your Views posted Tue Nov 8 2005 13:40:06 by LGWspeedbird
What Are Your Views On The A350? posted Fri Aug 26 2005 18:32:28 by Holidaycharter
A340-600, Your Views? posted Fri Nov 12 2004 17:20:06 by VSFullThrottle