13 replies to this topic

[FlyingDutchman7]

Howcome the A340-500 can hold less pax than the -300 while being larger?
And howcome the -600 can hold only a few more pax than the -300 while being much larger?

[james767]

The max paxs is right and I think it so the a340-500 is a long rang airliner. Also Most a340-500 and -600 have a lot of 1st and biz class.

[BritAbroad]

This is down to certification. The seating limits in reality (which is what we base upon) are usually defined by the position of the exits, and the proven speed of emergency evacuation (I believe it has to be under 90 seconds).
Seating limits aren't usually defined by length of the aircraft.

In future versions of the game, we'd like to have limits based upon certification, but "legroom" rating determined by length of the aircraft. Thus a large aircraft like the -500 will be more comfortable than the -300 even if it shares the same number of seats.

[FlyingDutchman7]

According to the blueprints, a 500 has the same exit configuration as the 300. Shouldn't it have the same max pax then?
You're right about the certified amount of pax, but I just wanna know how that certification became as it is.

BTW, in the next version the max amount of pax should be 375 on the 500. I mean, you should be able to have a configuration that in total has 375 pax. e.g. 75 in business and 300 in economy.

[Mobeer]

There's a relevant discussion here:
http://www.airliners...ad.main/239095/

This includes a couple of nice pictures showing different doors in use on the different planes.

[FlyingDutchman7]

So the 340-500 can't have that seventh and eighth full door? Thank you very much for answering my question.

[SIALimited]

I'm more curious as how the A340-500 can't make the Sing-Newark Route.

[mxax-ai]

well, it can.

[ar157]

it can, it just can't make it with SQ making a profit.

[mxax-ai]

Has SQ ever stated in public that their EWR route is unprofitable? If it had been that bad it would've been stopped long ago, no?

[SIALimited]

I highly doubt it's profitable considering they're ditching it this coming November. 

[ar157]

mxax, why ditch a route if it's profitable? considering the slowing down of the world economy, i can't imagine the loads to be improving. someone on a.net posted the LFs a while ago...SIN-EWR was averaging 60% or so while LAX averaged 70% or so. ULH simply won't work until the next generation of aircraft. A345s aren't exactly known for being fuel efficient. The official reasons given by SQ are increasing fuel prices and lowering demand for such intercontinental routes.

[SIALimited]

Going to be kind of sad to see it go, was hoping to catch it early next year when I do head for the States. Truly a remarkable flight.

[mxax-ai]

Sure, a highly unprofitable route would not continue to be operated. But then again it hasn't been ditched for at least eight years. No airline would operate an unprofitable route that's not a connection/commuter flight for so long.
Of course the rising fuel prices and slowing economy have to be taken into account too. Additionally I heard of some heavy maintenance due soon for the birds which would simply be too expensive, given their (unknown) profit.