A321NEO now to be certified to 240 passengers

[Zombie Slayer]

http://airchive.com/blog/2014/07/02/airbus-a321-extra-capacity/

Posting here since Feature Request forum still on lock down. Any chance of getting this added?

[Zombie Slayer]

http://worldairlinenews.com/2014/07/04/airbus-to-offer-high-density-seating-for-the-a320-and-a321/

Looks like the 320CEO/NEO will get a boost to 189 as well.

[xyeahtony]

the size of the plane isn't changing though, so the current seat allotment should stay the same. i'm guessing it would be more appropriate to affect HD seating for these models though. That's what these "certifications" are. 240 seats but all slimline, nonreclining 28 inch pitch seats.

[Zombie Slayer]

I see your argument, Tony, but every other plane in AWS uses the max certified capacity for the baseline number. A couple prominent examples are the 737-400 and 767-400ER.

Looking at the details....the 734 and 738 share the same emergency exit configuration and therefore are both certified to 189 pax. The 737-400 is ~120 feet long, the 737-800 is ~128 feet long giving the -800 room for 3 more rows of seats. No operator in their right mind would actually put 189 seats on a 734, you would need 28" pitch, no galleys, and just 2 lavs. The cabin length of the 734 is 82.5 feet, the 738's is 98.3 feet and 189 in a 738 is cramped!

Looking at the 764ER, the passenger compartment is 142 feet vs the 300 at 121 feet. 21 feet of space at 30" pitch and 8 abreast only provides space for 64 extra seats, yet the 764 is cetified (in real life and in AWS) to 409 seats and the 300 to 290. All configurations are based on this, yet the 409 seats quoted by Boeing is 8 abreast at 29" pitch while the "max" seating configuration of the -300 is based on 7 abreast at 32" pitch.

My point is, there are inequalities among aircraft everywhere, and max seating is based on exit limits as opposed to cabin dimensions. Since this change will lift the exit limits of each frame, it is only right that the new exit limits are included in AWS. And, in the case of the 321NEO, there are fundamental changes to the frame that will allow for more seats (the emergency exit reconfiguration) so it is not just a slimline seat increase, but an actual design change.

[b757capt]

I see your argument, Tony, but every other plane in AWS uses the max certified capacity for the baseline number. A couple prominent examples are the 737-400 and 767-400ER.

Looking at the details....the 734 and 738 share the same emergency exit configuration and therefore are both certified to 189 pax. The 737-400 is ~120 feet long, the 737-800 is ~128 feet long giving the -800 room for 3 more rows of seats. No operator in their right mind would actually put 189 seats on a 734, you would need 28" pitch, no galleys, and just 2 lavs. The cabin length of the 734 is 82.5 feet, the 738's is 98.3 feet and 189 in a 738 is cramped!

Looking at the 764ER, the passenger compartment is 142 feet vs the 300 at 121 feet. 21 feet of space at 30" pitch and 8 abreast only provides space for 64 extra seats, yet the 764 is cetified (in real life and in AWS) to 409 seats and the 300 to 290. All configurations are based on this, yet the 409 seats quoted by Boeing is 8 abreast at 29" pitch while the "max" seating configuration of the -300 is based on 7 abreast at 32" pitch.

My point is, there are inequalities among aircraft everywhere, and max seating is based on exit limits as opposed to cabin dimensions. Since this change will lift the exit limits of each frame, it is only right that the new exit limits are included in AWS. And, in the case of the 321NEO, there are fundamental changes to the frame that will allow for more seats (the emergency exit reconfiguration) so it is not just a slimline seat increase, but an actual design change.

I say it should model RL. So if AB is going to make it for 240 pax then AWS should allow it.

[Monica]

Boeing 737-8MAX has been adjusted up to 200 pax as well with an additonal over wing exit.