C Series Info
11-17-2019, 02:46 AM
#3841
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Look at these two, do you think we could get the FAA to sign off on a common type? Is it cockpit height that matters?
If they do, I would imagine Airbus would jump on that. You could have Delta type airlines that have huge 320 fleets and 221s/3s as well, or 220 operators who want a few 321s. It would be hard for Boeing to match unless they sit down with Embraer and make the 73 replacement a E195 sized option too.
Also, what is this about Bombardier selling out early and Airbus taking complete control? Has anyone heard that? Why do that?
11-17-2019, 05:41 AM
#3842
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,465
Retrofitting never happens. I’m still waiting for the M88 glass that was definitely happening after the 717 came. And the 757/767 to -400 glass up.
A brand new airplane with new tech from a different manufacturer becoming common with 2 existing in house fleets that have disparate flight decks... yeah, rrrrrrright.
A brand new airplane with new tech from a different manufacturer becoming common with 2 existing in house fleets that have disparate flight decks... yeah, rrrrrrright.
11-17-2019, 01:03 PM
#3844
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Position: Supreme Allied Commander
Posts: 1,074
Heres a question. Let's say they really do go all A350 cockpit option in all Airbi in 2025.
Look at these two, do you think we could get the FAA to sign off on a common type? Is it cockpit height that matters?
If they do, I would imagine Airbus would jump on that. You could have Delta type airlines that have huge 320 fleets and 221s/3s as well, or 220 operators who want a few 321s. It would be hard for Boeing to match unless they sit down with Embraer and make the 73 replacement a E195 sized option too.
Also, what is this about Bombardier selling out early and Airbus taking complete control? Has anyone heard that? Why do that?
Look at these two, do you think we could get the FAA to sign off on a common type? Is it cockpit height that matters?
If they do, I would imagine Airbus would jump on that. You could have Delta type airlines that have huge 320 fleets and 221s/3s as well, or 220 operators who want a few 321s. It would be hard for Boeing to match unless they sit down with Embraer and make the 73 replacement a E195 sized option too.
Also, what is this about Bombardier selling out early and Airbus taking complete control? Has anyone heard that? Why do that?
11-17-2019, 05:50 PM
#3845
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Before Airbus syncs two very different cockpits, they'll need to solve some incredibly complex limitations on their own aircraft. Like how to start a decent by itself from ALT CRZ, inputting an actual speed vs CI for managed speed, or inputting a user waypoint as next without selecting HDG/TRACK first & without a silly turn once NAV is reselected
It shouldn't turn after you put it back in nav, the 717 turned pretty hard but not the 320.
11-17-2019, 05:52 PM
#3846
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Retrofitting never happens. I’m still waiting for the M88 glass that was definitely happening after the 717 came. And the 757/767 to -400 glass up.
A brand new airplane with new tech from a different manufacturer becoming common with 2 existing in house fleets that have disparate flight decks... yeah, rrrrrrright.
A brand new airplane with new tech from a different manufacturer becoming common with 2 existing in house fleets that have disparate flight decks... yeah, rrrrrrright.
As to the 757/767... we just refuse to spend money on old airplanes but fedex has the nice screens... but still one of those old 1920s control wheel yoke things that block stretching out and using a table and such
11-17-2019, 06:08 PM
#3847
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,465
Not retrofitting, just future offers. If Airbus does really go to the 350 cockpit option moving forward after 2025 then it would be good for the longevity of the 220 to be a part of that.
As to the 757/767... we just refuse to spend money on old airplanes but fedex has the nice screens... but still one of those old 1920s control wheel yoke things that block stretching out and using a table and such
As to the 757/767... we just refuse to spend money on old airplanes but fedex has the nice screens... but still one of those old 1920s control wheel yoke things that block stretching out and using a table and such
I’m convinced if I stay long enough I’ll be flying the museum’s DC3.
11-17-2019, 06:47 PM
#3848
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
I don’t see Delta on board with any of this because they would have to retrofit or create more subcategories. I’ve been regressing in flight deck tech since I started at Delta. The paycheck and time off on the other hand... Here’s to more of that negative regression. I’m convinced if I stay long enough I’ll be flying the museum’s DC3.
I’m convinced if I stay long enough I’ll be flying the museum’s DC3.I just think it would be a good option for Airbus to have 221 to 321XXXLR the same type
11-17-2019, 08:27 PM
#3849
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Position: Supreme Allied Commander
Posts: 1,074
Leaving an altitude without a pilot's input is just something Airbus is philosophically opposed to, seems to be an American atc issue to them. Or that's how it was explained.
It shouldn't turn after you put it back in nav, the 717 turned pretty hard but not the 320.
It shouldn't turn after you put it back in nav, the 717 turned pretty hard but not the 320.
Last edited by saturn; 11-17-2019 at 08:46 PM.
11-17-2019, 08:49 PM
#3850
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Position: Supreme Allied Commander
Posts: 1,074
I agree on paper, having a common type 100-350 seats sounds brilliant.
Yet, don't know how you standardize two cockpits designed inherently different, with flight control laws and logic, electrical/hydraulic/pneumatic system components and logic, all different. Rockwell Collins vs Thales avionics displays & FMGCs, Auto-thrust vs throttle. And outside of the cockpit, the MX side has no commonality. You'd have to rip the entire brains and central nervous system out of the 220 and replace it with 1990s tech to accomplish what you seek. If SWA couldn't get the 737 classic the same type as the MAX, this will never happen.
Yet, don't know how you standardize two cockpits designed inherently different, with flight control laws and logic, electrical/hydraulic/pneumatic system components and logic, all different. Rockwell Collins vs Thales avionics displays & FMGCs, Auto-thrust vs throttle. And outside of the cockpit, the MX side has no commonality. You'd have to rip the entire brains and central nervous system out of the 220 and replace it with 1990s tech to accomplish what you seek. If SWA couldn't get the 737 classic the same type as the MAX, this will never happen.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
