WingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2031 posts, RR: 56 Posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2038 times:
If the latest news is to be believed, the smallest A350 will have 250 seats, or more in a two-class or single-class layout. I am wondering what (if anything) that means.
Many have observed that Airbus is just moving the "hole" in its lineup, by narrowing the gap between A350 and A380, but opening a gap between the A320 and A350.
I wonder if this isn't indicative of the strategy for the replacement of the A320, another 8-10 years from now. What if the A320NG was significantly enlarged compared to the current A320, and Airbus went to a 2-3-2 cross section? I figure this might lead to a reasonable range of 140-210 seats.
Would the twin isles offer much of an advantage for turning around LCC flights? Would the aerodynamic penalty of the larger cross section be worth the cost?
Grantcv From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 429 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1941 times:
I think that the size of the overhead bins is a very important consideration when it comes to the configuration of narrower jets. With 3+3 configuration, there is barely enough space for overhead baggage. With a 2+2+2 configuration, there would be less space as it would be impractical to have overhead bins in the center aisle. B777 style overhead bins won't work as the fuselage diameter won't be large enough to provide the necessary room above the cabin. Going to 2+3+2 only makes the situation worse - still not enough space for overhead bins over the center aisle, and another whole passenger to accomodate per row.
And quite frankly, if passengers could more easily get their bags into the overhead bins, the time it takes for them to get to their seats would improve. Increasing the squeeze up above will only slow things down as passenger rearrange things to try and get all their stuff to fit.