![]() |
Originally Posted by NoDeskJob
(Post 2513240)
How would that be any more miserable than a 757?
|
Originally Posted by BigHitterLlama
(Post 2513329)
Equally? I assumed the pitch in our 75 would be better than an ULCC 321 - could easily be wrong.
|
Originally Posted by Baradium
(Post 2513345)
I presumed the same airline's 321 vs their own 757 (if they had any) is what he was getting at.
|
Originally Posted by BigHitterLlama
(Post 2513329)
Equally? I assumed the pitch in our 75 would be better than an ULCC 321 - could easily be wrong.
|
Originally Posted by NoDeskJob
(Post 2512805)
Wow. I had no idea the plane was THAT capable. I’d be curious to know how many pax were on board.
And to think that’s not the LR..... |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 2514467)
No bags or cargo apparently. Bags had to go on another flight.
.... |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 2514524)
Source?
.... ( . ) Or it could have been tongue in cheek, but that would be so far out of character for sailingfun. So I stand by the above. |
Originally Posted by Vincent Chase
(Post 2514701)
The usual...
( . ) Or it could have been tongue in cheek, but that would be so far out of character for sailingfun. So I stand by the above. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 2514793)
If you look at the fuel burn the aircraft had to have gone with full fuel for 8:40 minutes. Using the lightest operating empty weight airbus publishes that leaves about 37,000 lbs of payload. The article I saw said aircraft was full. FAA winter weights are 195lbs per passenger. If it was full they had 225 onboard with crew. No matter how you slice the pie the numbers don’t allow much if anything in the belly.
He's shifting! |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 2514794)
Ooh... now we've gone to "not much."
He's shifting! |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:16 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands