A340-600 Overweight?

Interesting article in today's Times.

Airbus blames the airlines for heavy first/business seats with the airlines apparently blaming Airbus for incorrect guidance.

Jonathan

[Bazz]

Good spot Jonathan, that will be one to watch! VS are very active in the cargo area so this could hit them hard.

Would moving upper class to the back help? [:w]

No! As someone who hates turbulence, UC MUST stay at the front where it's much less bouncy!!

[:?] This maybe explains the oddity of both my recent lightly loaded (@130pax)A346 flights having the rear cabin section in Y pretty much full up, whilst the foward cabins of Y were completely empty.

Of course we all moved to stretch out on complete rows after take off, but this surely upsets the inflight trim of the aircraft.
Will we be stopped from doing this in the future?

Originally posted by PVGSLF
[:?] This maybe explains the oddity of both my recent lightly loaded (@130pax)A346 flights having the rear cabin section in Y pretty much full up, whilst the foward cabins of Y were completely empty.

Of course we all moved to stretch out on complete rows after take off, but this surely upsets the inflight trim of the aircraft.
Will we be stopped from doing this in the future?

Good point ... On my recent flights to JFK and BOS with loads of 113 and 116 we were told NOT to move until the Seat belt signs had been switched off, and then everyone MUST return to their alloted seats for landing.

The last post reminds me of that old wives tale about you having to sit in your assigned seat so they can identify you in the event of a crash [:(]

Seriously though, on my last flight the load was very light and we were not told to return to our own seats. In fact my OH was asked to move to the exit row, as were other people i.e. further towards the front of the plane.

Paul

Originally posted by andrew.m.wright


Good point ... On my recent flights to JFK and BOS with loads of 113 and 116 we were told NOT to move until the Seat belt signs had been switched off, and then everyone MUST return to their alloted seats for landing.

This is pretty normal. A complex calculation is completed after check in is complete (ie when it is known where everyone is sitting) so that the crew can set the trim correctly. This is most critical during take off and landing.

If a significant number of people moved from their allocated seats, the take off/landing behaviour of the aircraft would change unexpectedly. The result would be a nasty mess in Isleworth. It is not nearly as significant after 10000 feet. Partly this is because at the higher speed the plane is not close to it's stall speed and partly because the higher speed is a bigger factor in the lift equation. Also there is more time for the trim to be automatically corrected before the plane hits the ground.[}:)]

[Scrooge]

I feel a myth busters episode coming on.

Anyways back to the OP.

There were a number of issues with the 346, VS being a launch customer faced the brunt of these.

One of them was that the aircraft was burning more fuel than Airbus had said it would.Some software updates, a little palm greasing and everyone is now happy.

Well kind off, but I don't want to turn this into another "which new aircraft is VS getting thread"

I like the comment "The A340-600 is a piece of spaghetti with wings". Pretty much sums it up.

Anyone who has sat forward of the number 2 doors on the 346 will acknowledge that the nose section waggles and waves around during takeoff, climb, and in turbulence (a hell of a lot more than the DC9/MD80 which has a similarly long section forward of the wings).

My guess is there was a compromise between the length of the stretch and weight gained by addition of more "stiffness" to support the stretch.

The airframe loading assumptions made when the 346 was designed are probably no longer valid due to the changes in premium cabin configurations.

(I've always preferred the Boeing widebodies over the Airbuses, but maintain a soft spot for the A300/A310 family.)

Cheers,
Mike