It was about the proposal to produce a 160 seat version of the C300 by using 'slim'backed seats, removing a toilet and reducing seat pitch to 28".
However the issue seemed to be whether they would have to add additional overwing exits or not which would seriously hurt the economics of the standard version of the aircraft (weight). They appear to say that a "double exit" may be the way round that. Is that a double sized emergency exit door or something different?
Appreciate someones knowledge on door to pax ratios and exirs etc.
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 10282 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2846 times:
So far no one has been able to demonstrate to the FAA that more than 150 passengers can exit a narrowbody with only since overwing exits and the main doors. Boeing, McDonnell Douglas and Airbus have had double window exit configurations or additional doors on all narrowbodies that have more than 150 seats. If Bombardier wants to get the CS300 certified to 160 seats, they may not be able to do it with only 6 exits. They likely would need 8, or some other type of exemption, quicker open door, larger door, etc. When Easyjet wanted to put more than 150 passengers in an A319, EASA forced Airbus to put a second set of overwing doors in. Additional overwing exits add weight, so it is obvious that Bombardier would want to find an alternative solution.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1840 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2675 times:
Thanks for all the above comments. Looks like it will be a while then (if ever) as they are pressing as hard as they can to get the'standard' aircraft out.
But even at 150 seats it should be very economical.I imagine that one day - with the ever increasing budget airline growth that a 2 model plane strategy will happen one day.Ryan air are as we know pressing for the 199 seat option.But whilst this makes huge sense in the peak (summer) months it equally becomes a mill stone in the winter - leading to schedule cancelation.Having an aircraft like this in the fleet may make 52 week operation more viable.
"or some other type of exemption",
The only thing I can think of - but not necessarily right, is that being narrower than the standard 3x3 perhaps people can get into the isles - and therefore out, quicker.But I cannot really think why this should be.