- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Posts
- 30,482
- Qantas
- Platinum
- Virgin
- Platinum
- Star Alliance
- Gold
"Common" sense from a PAX circulation perspective would say a toilet is required towards the front of Y, especially as these aircraft get stretched in the Y section. Hey, a front toilet would even provide a separator from J and divert those who might have thought about heading to the J cubicle as well. A bit of extra plumbing and a few lost inches of seat space, but seriously, how many flights have less than 3 empty Y seats in them that they couldn't fore go those 3 seats. Pretty similar issue with 9 across 787, load factors on QF flights would suggest that 8 across 787 y would actually cost very little in actual lost seat km revenue and would have provided a layout that was genuinely worth paying a premium for.Makes sense for passenger circulation, particularly during meals.
But equally a negative for visibility of pax and exits in a safety scenario..
Plus whatever impact extra plumbing/ tanking has.
Overall it seems less favoured among the airlines ordering 321s versus an extra toilet at the back.
As above, the error being that these initial XLRs were destined for JQ and meant to be delivered in 2024, before
And they could follow JAL as the only other airline using 8 across in a 787 as designed.Pretty similar issue with 9 across 787, load factors on QF flights would suggest that 8 across 787 y would actually cost very little in actual lost seat km revenue and would have provided a layout that was genuinely worth paying a premium for.
AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements
Qantas have more A220s than A321XLRs on order