Originally Posted by
EWR73FO
What does the 319 hold? 120 paxs? The 320 holds what, 138? Point is, a transcon with the 319/320 carrying the same load is not the same as a 73 and it never will be. It just doesn't have the range when you put a decent load on it. You simply can't carry the same number of paxs. Comfort doesn't pay the bills. Filled seats and ancillary revenue does. That's why you see the MAX over the NEO. They are not the same jet, not even close. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
OK, it doesn't hold the same number of uncomfortable bodies as a stretch-gup, I will grant you that. Math, who would have guessed? However, it does fly FULL, from east to west in winter.
"It doesn't have the range when you put a decent load on it"....Full isn't a decent load? Range? Why fly past California or Seattle in it? Where are you going? The country is this wide------------------------------> the bus easily crosses it without bumping anyone or their bags 99 times out of 100.
The seats are filled, so are the pits....with plenty of gas to spare. I will agree with you that a longer, narrower plane has a greater number of more uncomfortable and cramped seats in it and can therefore generate more revenue. But that's not what this tangent was all about.