Comments by "Miniena" (@miniena7774) on "Simple Flying" channel.

  1. What if the aft restrooms were brought forward and crew bunks were placed behind them on both sides of the aisle? For privacy, a curtain could be hung veiling the rest area and galley. Lie-flat seats could also be installed.
    32
  2. BOEING is in a state of disarray.
    18
  3. Get over yourself.
    14
  4.  @mikeschmit007  "which is not a commercial success for me." Fortunately, you aren't the arbiter of "commercial success," O Wise YouTube Nobel Laureate economist.
    11
  5.  @quillmaurer6563  > Such a rest area would eliminate passenger seats both on the long-haul flights where it's needed, as well as on short-haul flights where it's not. See, the problem is that airlines are intending to use these on 8-10 hour flights, which necessitates a crew swap. Short-haul flights would be the exception, not the rule.
    3
  6. You reap what you sew.
    3
  7. bluntly*
    2
  8.  @Kalvinjj  I considered that, but then there's the issue of a door obstructing an emergency evacuation -- not to mention the added weight of installing partitions to hinge it on.
    2
  9.  @Kalvinjj  Just to clarify: by "jammed," I mean if the ceiling were to collapse or the floor were to be pushed upward preventing the door from moving. While lavatory-type doors are, in theory, still susceptible to this, their fold may them easier to breach.
    2
  10. Good.
    2
  11. A veritable blight on the airport. Good riddance!
    1
  12.  @Kalvinjj  Great points! 1.) An un-lockable door wouldn't be an issue. Another complication to consider, though, is the door jamming because of the accident's forces. 2.) I see what you're saying about the partitions. I only brought it up because certain carriers, like American and Delta, have replaced their traditional bulkhead dividers with light-weight ones that are more titular than effective. That is, they don't actually block anything by extending from the ceiling to the floor; instead, they only extend like 1/4 of the way down. I just assumed this was a fuel-saving measure -- despite it being trivial to the aircraft's weight. Of course, interior configurations are at the carrier's discretion, and American airlines may be the exception rather than the rule. I think a foldable lavatory-type door would be a good solution, rather than a conventional one (e.g., the cockpit's).
    1
  13.  @quillmaurer6563  Sorry, but I don't understand. Even lavatory doors are closed for takeoff and landing. A traditional door being propped open would be prone to slamming shut. Is there really a need for one at all?
    1
  14.  @quillmaurer6563  > I would imagine airlines would probably get fleets of these long-range narrowbodies and use them for both these long-haul flights as well as more typical short-haul narrowbody duties You'd imagine wrong. It's no different than dedicating airframes on specific routes with specific configurations as we do now, e.g., American's transcon A321T.
    1
  15.  @gregmorgan8350  Bahaha!
    1
  16.  @grozaphy  Quiet.
    1
  17. Liar.
    1
  18. Incorrect; it's "FAN-NY."
    1
  19. 2:52 Sharklets*
    1
  20.  @mikeschmit007  No one refuted that was your opinion; I merely informed you that its insinuations were nonsensical. 😊
    1
  21.  @mikeschmit007  According to your channel, you're tone deaf. Ergo, your opinions are irrelevant.
    1
  22.  @johniii8147  La Compagnie flies EWR-ORY with the 321neo, albeit in an all-business-class config.
    1