Part of the problem for managers who are focussed on finding new and better ways to shave costs and increase revenue is that if they don't have an airline background its almost impossible for them to look at the array of specs available with a new type in the same way as professionals.
Pilots, fleet planners, engineers and load controllers have the range/payload trade-offs embedded within their DNA. I doubt there's ever been an airliner where the hard choices didn't have to be made. And inevitably airliners end up going to the extreme of their range and giving grey hair to marketers trying to reliably sell seats. Think QF's 747 SYD-DFW-BNE operation. Think way further back to DC-9s operating SYD-TSV or ADL-PER. "Fill it up overwing and leave the bags behind"
Professional fleet planners and manufacturers technical marketing reps are good at understanding the implications of each seat layout, each engine choice, each spec. Not for them the "low hanging fruit" of choosing or advising an airline to get the low strength floor, don't buy life rafts, select non-reclining seats, get the low TOW option, buy de-rated engines, save money by not buying ACARS or HF radio etc etc etc.
But those who think that being a great manager is to see self-evident truths that have eluded previous generations look at those range/payload graphs and drift-down charts, ETOPS planning, escape routes, seasonal take-off performance limits, second segment and obstacle issues, engine-out take off and missed approach limits etc etc and want in their hearts to cut through it in the same way well meaning but ignorant manager might by-pass a Matron's knowledge and seek to cut costs on cleaning in a hospital. Great idea but flawed in the extreme.
They just so want there to be a way to jam in lots of people without range implications that it defies logic. Its another manifestation of the law of unintended consequences. Maximise revenue by jamming the cabin while losing revenue opportunities by crippling the range capabilities. So you get an aeroplane like the 787-8 that should happily operate MEL-LAX with say 180-210 pax barely able to get SYD-HNL with well over 300. Or an airline that can't see the virtues of the 777-200LR and instead tries to get an ancient 4 engine 747 fleet to operate ultra long range routes.
Yes it might seem at first glance to be pathetic. But in a KPI driven and cost focussed world eager hearts so want to get it right and not have to make difficult choices based on actual facts and ramifications. Just like little children who get invited to two birthday parties on the same day......they just so want to have it all......
Last edited by Algie; 3rd Feb 2014 at 19:35.