No offense, but I absolutely know what the term legacy means, I come from an airline family whose father and brother both flew for airline long before deregulation.. My comment stands that it is an out-of-date way to refer to airlines. I consider WN as much of a "legacy carrier" as anyone.
That's called confusing an opinion with fact.
I mean, you're free to refer to them as whatever you want; hell, call them a spaceline for all it matters.
But be aware that your purposeful misuse of the term, does not change the fact
that they are not, nor could they ever be, an actual legacy carrier.
They can't continue a legacy of something that they never possessed.
US airlines are plenty competitive as it is. Now if it’s service you want improved, that starts with the paying passengers. They’ve proven time and time again they’d rather save a few bucks and get crap accomodations (ie the ULCC garbage currently plowing the skies on behalf of the Big Lots crowds) then pay a little more and be treated like a human.
AA's failed MRTC was likely the last gasp. The public can say what they want, but they've shown with their wallets time and time again that when you offer a more luxurious option, versus a cheaper one; the latter (for the majority) will prevail. For the few for whom it doesn't: there's Y+, W, J, F, etc.
I won't be surprised if soon EVERY airline is NK, so far as Y service goes.
Even the oh-so-revered Asian carriers. Probably only a matter of time.
The only people I think that are making a really big deal out of it is a.nettters.
A congregation of enthusiasts making a big deal out of a technical detail?! ...no wayyy!
The ULR has a number of aero and structural changes, the MTOW was never the key to the additional range, it more about flying further more efficiently.
Obviously not, but no one was contending otherwise.
Just surprised that Airbus et al made such a comparative big deal over PR's weight choice, if it's only a ton in excess of what already
I naturally assumed it would be special inside, but as you point out weight saving will be everything for this model.
What I heard recently in Toulouse is that they really remove everything they can to save weight to get to the performance they'll need. What I've been told is that they actually rendered the front cargo hold useless just to save weight. Wonder if that turns out to be true.
I have a hard time believing that. What if a carrier wants to use it for a short turn in between ULHs, which SQ used to do even with their old A345s; why should they be denied the option to use?
We are in such a golden age for airliner development! I love it.
Many would argue that we're in an age of convergent evolution... that development continues to produce more or less the same design to do the job, with only minor differences.
Comparing an A350 and 777 is like looking at a Sugar Glider vs a Flying Squirrel; two things with completely different origins/development, but whose design (and external appearance) have essentially rendered them mirror aspects of each other.
The whiny 4holer-nostalgic types, sure notice it too.
The landing gear doors will remain hydraulically powered.
See post above. Looks like they will be electric.
That's on the A35K. The current A359s are hydraulic, not electric.
I was wondering if the A359ULR and post-2020 birds will have the electric doors. The poster above seems to believe not.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil