Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ryanair Want To Copy Noah - Influencing Comac?  
User currently offlinefruitbat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 550 posts, RR: 6
Posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 8010 times:

"Ryanair plans to increase width of plane doors to speed up boarding"

Surely this concept only works if the aircraft aisle is wider as well?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...ryanair-width-plane-doors-boarding

There are some interesting points about the Irish airlines' influence on COMAC, and how Boeing and Airbus are less interested in designing aircraft specifically for Ryanair. This doesn't surprise me, even though Ryanair are a massive airline (300 aircraft); however some of the concepts mentioned are common to all LCCs so we may see them in the future.

From the article:

"We want two people to walk through the door. If the door is wider you can load people on and off the aircraft quicker. We want a low-cost plane that suits our business model," said Millar. The Ryanair executive added that the airline had got off to a good start with its design agreement with Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (Comac), a state-owned business that has not batted an eyelid at Ryanair's more progressive suggestions. On the other hand Boeing and Airbus, said Millar, were not interested in a bespoke aircraft."


Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel.
26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10426 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7998 times:

Is this another of Ryanair's "jokes" to garner publicity? What difference does it make HOW wide the door is if the aisle inside isn't a similar width? Same goes for the Jetway, I would assume. Silly......very silly.


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15742 posts, RR: 27
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7953 times:

Quoting fruitbat (Thread starter):
"Ryanair plans to increase width of plane doors to speed up boarding"

That seems dumb. In my experience, the time it takes to board is not restricted by the door size but rather by the rate at which people move down the aisle, find their seats, stow their carryon, and get into their seats. And then get up when the guy in the window shows up, etc. Seems that making the door wider would just allow people to wait in the aisle longer while others get situated.

Quoting fruitbat (Thread starter):
On the other hand Boeing and Airbus, said Millar, were not interested in a bespoke aircraft."

Hardly surprising. I think I have a better solution, although it's probably only marginally less work for manufacturers: move the L1 door back about 9 rows. That way, when passengers are boarding, some going in the front door go left and some go right which should cut down blockage in the aisle, since someone wanting a seat in row 14 could only be impeded by those in rows 10-14 rather than 1-14 as it is now. Putting rows 1-9 (8.5 rows actually) ahead of the forward entry door means that passengers would deal with a maximum of 11.5 rows of potential delays rather than 16.5.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineB6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2888 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7895 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2):
I think I have a better solution, although it's probably only marginally less work for manufacturers: move the L1 door back about 9 rows.

IIRC, regulations dictate that you cannot have the exit only behind the seating. The only recent aircraft with that would be the B748 which was grandfathered in. Otherwise, passenger seating needs to be behind the first door.



"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15742 posts, RR: 27
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7885 times:

Quoting B6JFKH81 (Reply 3):
IIRC, regulations dictate that you cannot have the exit only behind the seating. The only recent aircraft with that would be the B748 which was grandfathered in. Otherwise, passenger seating needs to be behind the first door.

The R1 door would stay where it is, so each seat would still have exits fore and aft.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineB6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2888 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7873 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):
The R1 door would stay where it is, so each seat would still have exits fore and aft.

Aaaaaahhhh, okay, I see what you're saying. Hmmmm....interesting   



"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
User currently offlinefruitbat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 550 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7861 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 1):
Is this another of Ryanair's "jokes" to garner publicity?

I don't think so - it appears almost sensible until you think about it for a few seconds.....in fact:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2):
In my experience, the time it takes to board is not restricted by the door size but rather by the rate at which people move down the aisle, find their seats, stow their carryon, and get into their seats. And then get up when the guy in the window shows up, etc. Seems that making the door wider would just allow people to wait in the aisle longer while others get situated.

I agree, hence my point about needing a wider aisle for this to be effective. So you'd need a wider, heavier aircraft and the knock-on effects mean that the economics go out of the window (or the door!).

It'll never fly IMO - but some of the other ideas in the article might.



Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel.
User currently offlineplaneguy727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1247 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7818 times:

Perhaps they are preparing for a new approach...start boarding as the previous pax are deplaning. [it's a joke, folks]   


I want to live in an old and converted 727...
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13114 posts, RR: 100
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7604 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mayor (Reply 1):
Is this another of Ryanair's "jokes" to garner publicity?

MOL is stretching. Are people tired about him claiming to charge for the WC?


There stock hasn't done anything for a long time... So something needs to change with their business model. Instead of innovating... distract.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10426 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7569 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 8):
There stock hasn't done anything for a long time... So something needs to change with their business model. Instead of innovating... distract.

Well, the business model that they copied from, WN, is changing. I don't suppose MO has paid ANY attention to that.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineeurowings From UK - England, joined Sep 2011, 298 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7396 times:

Quoting planeguy727 (Reply 7):
Perhaps they are preparing for a new approach...start boarding as the previous pax are deplaning.
FR almost do that already. As soon as the aircraft arrives, there's no hesitation to get as many passengers as they can through the gate and queuing up in stairwells and corridors until the plane is ready for boarding.

In Budapest, they've actually gone a step further and created a queuing system on the ramp! See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOWRQVr96lg

Quoting mayor (Reply 9):
Well, the business model that they copied from, WN, is changing. I don't suppose MO has paid ANY attention to that.

FR has created its own business model as an ultra low cost carrier, it never has been, and I suspect never will be, a copy of WN in Europe. The likes of easyJet and Vueling, among many smaller airlines, have that segment of the market covered. When FR offers any frills and costs rise, the brand is dead.

[Edited 2012-07-31 00:21:58]

User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7307 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 1):
Is this another of Ryanair's "jokes" to garner publicity? What difference does it make HOW wide the door is if the aisle inside isn't a similar width? Same goes for the Jetway, I would assume. Silly......very silly.

Ryanair doesn't use jetways, these are a clear limitation of boarding speed. Ryanair instead boards over the tarmac and uses BOTH doors where possible, this really speeds up the boarding process. And most Ryanair passengers ( I do not speak about holiday destinations) are really as quick in taking their seat as in a local city bus. To illustrate this, I had the following event on an early morning HHN-STN. We were on a full Ryanair plane. The captain announced to us that something was broken in the cockpit, and ground had decided that he and we should take the neighbored plane which was supposed to leave an hour later. So crew and pax went off the plane, around the plane to the next one and boarded there, I looked at my clock and it was 8 minutes until everybody was sitting again. Captain made his walk around and we left with 20mins delay, arrived with 5mins delay.


User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19229 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7240 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 8):
MOL is stretching. Are people tired about him claiming to charge for the WC?

No one mentions that except on A.net.



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlinekl911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5140 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7201 times:

This sounds like a great idea. Its so often that i am already seated and it takes at least 20 minutes for the others to board.
I always wondered why the doors are so small. Cargo doors are much wider, so it is possible.

Great thinking by FR. They should have opted for A320 though, wider fuselage than 737.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9376 posts, RR: 29
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7095 times:

Quoting planeguy727 (Reply 7):
Perhaps they are preparing for a new approach...start boarding as the previous pax are deplaning. [it's a joke, folks]

the doors should come with a push button that opens once the green light comes on. Push buttons are installed in- and outside. It makes sense actually when passengers are deplaning usin the left lane and emplaning at the same time using the right lane.

Turn-arounds could be reduced to 10 minutes or less that way and the company name is changed to Ryanairtrain.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 611 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6965 times:

Quoting kl911 (Reply 13):
Great thinking by FR. They should have opted for A320 though, wider fuselage than 737.

Very low on the scale of probability but should Ryan opt for the C919 - its wider than the Airbus - the pieces would begin to fall into place.
Since Boeing and Airbus do not seem to be playing ball, it looks like Comac is well positioned to building the first custom-designed LCC airliner (wider doors and aisle, smaller galleys and hold, plus whatever space and weight-saving ideas they can think of)...if MOL takes the unlikely plunge.



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlinehal9213 From Germany, joined May 2009, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6699 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 1):
Same goes for the Jetway, I would assume.

No Jetways for Ryanair. But they use integrated stairs, they could make those wider on the C919.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2):
And then get up when the guy in the window shows up, etc.

No assigned seating on Ryanair. As experience shows, everybody rushes to the window seats first. Which, in this case, is not bad.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):
The R1 door would stay where it is, so each seat would still have exits fore and aft.

You forget: That would mean an extra fullsize (or doublesize in fact) door, which takes up space for 3-4 seat rows.
However, how about cutting the right side doors? I mean, is there a regulation, that says, airplanes must have doors on the opposite side of each other?
Ryanair doesnt need access from the right side for catering or cleaning crew, so how about designing a plane, which has 3 big fullsize doors on the left side, all with integrated stairs for boarding, and just hatch-type doors at seatrows on the right side.
Would FAA/EASA approve such a design?

Quoting planeguy727 (Reply 7):
Perhaps they are preparing for a new approach...start boarding as the previous pax are deplaning. [it's a joke, folks]

Not really a joke. On many turnarounds, while boarding, you can say hello to the last passengers deplaning.


User currently offline777atech From Canada, joined Mar 2006, 30 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6635 times:

I suggest they take a good look at the C17.....
That plane will solve most of their problems as it was design to perfectly suit Rynair philosophy of air travel. They could load the passengers ultra fast plus, at certain intervals, it could drop the tail gate allowing the passengers to relieve themselves.
On these occasions, they could also remove safely, any passenger who proves difficult.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10426 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6192 times:

Quoting 777atech (Reply 17):
I suggest they take a good look at the C17.....
That plane will solve most of their problems as it was design to perfectly suit Rynair philosophy of air travel. They could load the passengers ultra fast plus, at certain intervals, it could drop the tail gate allowing the passengers to relieve themselves.
On these occasions, they could also remove safely, any passenger who proves difficult.

And boarding and deplaning times could be cut drastically, by strapping the pax and their bags down to pallets (they could even charge for the straps) and then it's just a matter of loading and unloading the pallets. Load 'em up like cordwood. I'm kidding, of course (I think)  
Quoting Burkhard (Reply 11):
Ryanair doesn't use jetways, these are a clear limitation of boarding speed. Ryanair instead boards over the tarmac and uses BOTH doors where possible, this really speeds up the boarding process.

Didn't know that. However, if they use BOTH doors, why not be loading from one door while deplaning from the other? They could be going up the rear stairs as they're coming down the front stairs.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinerichardw From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 3750 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5270 times:

How many sectors are they hoping to gain per

Day?
Week?
Fortnight?
Three weeks?


User currently offlinefruitbat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 550 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 5057 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 12):
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 8):
MOL is stretching. Are people tired about him claiming to charge for the WC?

No one mentions that except on A.net.

Sorry, but The Guardian remember it as well. From the article:

"The deputy chief executive added that a Ryanair C919 would have the "normal toilet quota", referring to O'Leary's request for fewer toilets in Boeing 737s and the chief executive's suggestion – not acted on – of charging passengers to use them. Other mooted O'Leary innovations include removing one pilot from flights, having standing seats and, in one brainstorming session that was never heavily publicised, putting passengers in the hold."

(My emphasis, couldn't resist the rest of the paragraph!)



Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel.
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13114 posts, RR: 100
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4976 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

MOL keeps mentioning COMAC. I can think of only a few reasons:
1. Pricing or delivery terms are not as wished from Boeing. (Airbus?)
2. The plane on paper makes economic sense to FR.
Turn times
Fuel Burn
Delivery time frame

The C919 had several compromises agreed to early on for expediting time to market. But I look at the COMAC ARJ-21 and I have a few concerns.
Did they ever resolve the De-icing issues found in flight test?
What was found with stall margin with the ARJ-21's wing?

Both of those issues are *tough* problems to solve with swept laminar flow wings (it is simpler with a lower speed straight wing such as the GlobalHawk). The more laminar or the more swept (higher cruise speed), the tougher the engineering will be. These are not unexpected issues. It is what we face going to the next generation of wing profile technologies. Everyone knows about these issues. My question is how much risk did COMAC take on with the C919 wing?

Which doesn't even begin to scratch the issues of aftermarket support and C919 entry into service issues. I keep wondering what MOL is trying to accomplish with the many references to the C919 he has made over the last year. I do not see any Western Board of Directors approving the type for a few years. It will have to prove itself first. For FR, any significant dispatch reliability issues would break their business model.

Quoting mayor (Reply 9):
I don't suppose MO has paid ANY attention to that.

I'm sure he has paid attention. I just haven't seen the momentum shift. The best airline models are evolving.

Quoting fruitbat (Thread starter):
Boeing and Airbus are less interested in designing aircraft specifically for Ryanair.

   Those two design for leasing companies today.

Quoting mayor (Reply 18):
Load 'em up like cordwood. I'm kidding, of course (I think)

Why? Modular loading of passengers has been researched to improve efficiency. However, it requires expensive equipment per-installed at both airports unless a C-17 like airframe is used.

That said, the C-17 is a *very* expensive airframe due to the low production rate, military standards, added equipment for unimproved fields, STOL, and built in battle survivability. I'm not sure passengers would be happy with the comfort levels provided and it would have issues with European noise regulations...

Quoting mayor (Reply 18):
However, if they use BOTH doors, why not be loading from one door while deplaning from the other?

How does one ensure a passenger doesn't freeload to the next destination? What they do is unload, clean, then load.

Quoting hal9213 (Reply 16):
I mean, is there a regulation, that says, airplanes must have doors on the opposite side of each other?

Evacuation rules require half of the doors to be blocked and that the 'most critical combination' of blocked doors be tested. Today, the right side doors are often smaller than the left doors.

I hope everyone realizes the larger the door, the heavier the frame around the door to prevent airframe deflection when the door is opened. The current door frames create 'interesting engineering compromises' as other structure is altered to accommodate the door. Obviously larger doors are possible (e.g., cargo aircraft). But there is another catch: in order to collateralize the loan or lease on the airframe, the door must be compatible with jetways in order to have a healthy resale market.

FR cannot afford to pay cash for every new airframe they require. Any changes that inhibit resale increase the cost of the loan. While this is a problem money will solve... Why deal with it? It is like the cargo hold issue with FR. While they do not require cargo, most narrowbody operators want more cargo, not less. Good luck financing that plane...

MOL can ask for whatever he wants. If Udvar-Hazy says no, then neither Airbus nor Boeing can go forward. It will take a new entrant to offer solutions that the leasing community doesn't accept.

Quoting hal9213 (Reply 16):
Would FAA/EASA approve such a design?

Sure! After two evacuation tests.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinerbgso From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 592 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4961 times:

I just don't ever remember seeing a bottleneck caused by the door on any aircraft. 99% of the time it's folks with steamer trunks plugging up the aisle. A wider door is not going to get anyone on or off faster IMHO.

User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10426 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4898 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 21):
That said, the C-17 is a *very* expensive airframe due to the low production rate, military standards, added equipment for unimproved fields, STOL, and built in battle survivability. I'm not sure passengers would be happy with the comfort levels provided and it would have issues with European noise regulations...

Well, there were alot of C-141s sitting in the desert just waiting to be reengined. Not sure if they're still there or not. I flew on a C-141 from SYA to ANC configured with rear facing seats, mounted on 463L pallets. Regarding FR, I'm sure they'd rather simplify that and just have the pax LAY on the pallets and then be strapped down. Much simpler and think of the revenue gained by charging for the use of the straps.


I'm kidding of course (SURE I am), but some of MO's ideas don't seem any less harebrained than this does.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15742 posts, RR: 27
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4738 times:

Quoting hal9213 (Reply 16):
No assigned seating on Ryanair. As experience shows, everybody rushes to the window seats first. Which, in this case, is not bad.

Don't people want aisles? Usually I find people don't want windows, but other than that it's split between window people and aisle people.

Quoting hal9213 (Reply 16):
You forget: That would mean an extra fullsize (or doublesize in fact) door, which takes up space for 3-4 seat rows.

No it wouldn't. Move the L1 door back and slide the seats forward.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
25 lightsaber : Why isn't MOL bringing up the 'short haul widebody' concept? That would do far more for boarding times. The quick answer is that it doesn't put any pr
26 BMI727 : Why did they make that rule?
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...
Ryanair Want To Pay Less For Buzz posted Tue Mar 18 2003 20:12:07 by Lj
UA Want To Reduce Space At DEN posted Sat Apr 28 2012 22:28:30 by MasseyBrown
Ryanair Forced To Cancel Budapest Flights posted Mon Mar 5 2012 08:16:03 by kl911
Airlines Who Want To Be In An Alliance, But Can't posted Fri Jan 20 2012 04:34:01 by VC10er
Ryanair Lastest To Pass ETS Costs To Passengers posted Thu Jan 12 2012 04:15:35 by Pe@rson
Ryanair Pax To Be Charged 7EUR In Riga Airport posted Wed Dec 28 2011 05:31:23 by smbukas
UPS Pilots Suing FAA. Don't Want To Fly Tired. posted Fri Dec 23 2011 04:21:35 by murchmo
How Does Ryanair Manage To Fill Their Flights? posted Wed Nov 9 2011 03:29:38 by canadiantree
So You Want To Be An Airline Pilot No. 2 - The Big posted Tue Jan 11 2011 06:35:45 by AirNovaBAe146
Ryanair Starting To Overbook? posted Thu Oct 14 2010 02:26:21 by gpbcroppers63