Originally Posted by
Snakecharma
I think the cargo door thing is being a little over blown.
yes, in an ideal world they should all have the bigger door, but it isn’t the end of the world and it does not really, in a practical sense, limit the freight it can carry. It just makes handling more of a pain.
the smaller cargo door is the standard fitting on the 777 and the bigger cargo door is the option. If it was such a huge deal there would be no choice. The decision to go with the standard door was a swift decision that had longer term implications, and was about a million bucks an airframe if I remember correctly.
The fact it is an option is more about Boeing trying to present an undesirable option then offering a $ upgrade to fit the door that should be standard (like on the 747)... if it wasn't a problem then the 747 wouldn't have had it as standard. A created opportunity to gouge just a bit more money per airframe.
Secondly, no, it's not the 'end of the world' but although no one at VA seems to realise, the airline industry is a tightly coupled, interconnected network (I say that because of their boneheaded attitude to standard industry processes such as FIMs, interline, etc. mostly based on misconceptions) that relies, particularly with perishable cargo (which is why after all, it is sent by air) being able to be carried then rapidly transferred to another flight where their is no direct service. Not having the door means that the most effective means of carriage, say for something up to 5,100kg or more (4626 for an 88 inch pallet), that the most efficient unitisation and handling is to pack it ONCE onto a pallet or an appropriate (96 or 88 inch) pallet based unit. This takes time, it needs to be weighed and recorded on a weight statement to go to Load Control. Not having the door means, for example, transferring from an A330 to a 777 or from another operator affiliated with VA who presents a pallet base unit, will need unloading/packing, repacking into several smaller ULDs, then weighing, paperwork and despatch back to the ramp (often the cargo facility is remote from the terminal). I suggest considering the cost of manpower, say 2 x 2hrs at each port where this has to occur and multiply it across 5 airframes and say 2 pallets per flight (it's probably more potentially), every day, is more than $.5M per annum based on a very, very conservative per hour charge for labor. This means the extra $1M on just ONE door would be repaid after 2 years. It is a fact that ANY airline that is looking to make a dollar is going to look at the ex VA aircraft and pass them up for one that has a larger door. It's not a huge, world-ending disaster by any means but it does show a basic lack of understanding in ordering the aircraft... and doing it to pay for a paint job (which is now removed) is just nuts.
So SQ didn't specify the larger door... so what, they are not the great oracles of the industry that everyone makes them out to be... looking at them without rose coloured glasses, they have plenty of foibles like any airline and they are known to be penny pinchers in many instances.