Stitch wrote:

It's not a case of "defending the company line". It's a case of combating hyperbole.

To listen to some people on this forum, that one inch of seat width - be it Economy, Premium Economy, Business or First Class - literally makes a flight - be it 15 minutes or 15 hours in duration - "tolerable" or "intolerable". And while it is unreasonable or even unfair for people to state that folks should just pay more for more comfort, we have people claiming that "the public" will in fact pay more to fly an A320 over a 737 or an A330/A350 over a 777/787 to get that one inch - even if they give up legroom to do it (like EK's 10-abreast 777, which have 34" pitch - 3-4" more than many competitor's A330s/A350s).

Seat width plays as much a role of comfort in premium cabins as it does in non-premium. I prefer the 20-21" wide seats of the 747/777 over the 19" wide seats in the 767, for example. But I'm not going to book a one-stop 777 over a non-stop 767 for that one inch. Nor will I pay more for a 747/777 flight over a 767 flight that meets my other trip criteria. And I am certainly not going to claim that "the premium cabin public" will take longer routings or pay a fair bit more for a 20" wide Business Class seat over a 19" wide one.

I still find it strange that someone used to flying J and F is commenting that 1" in Y isn't much to be concerned about when you acknowledge it plays a role even in premium cabins on how comfortable you perceive a flight was. If you wanted to find out if it is hyperbole or not I would suggest flying a few Y long haul flights in a variety of seats on a variety of airlines to make up your own mind on whether there is something to it or not.

Another experiment is to stay at the back of a 77W for a while and to experience the noise compared to the front. All of these plays a role on whether a flight is tolerable or not. Having a cramped seat in a quiet (relative) premium cabin is a lot better than having a cramped seat in a full cabin with the extra noise at the back section.

This doesn't mean that airlines will stop buying Boeing products. They will buy whatever makes them the most profit and Boeing produces aircraft that makes airlines money.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Boy, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. Seriously, disparaging Stitch like that is quite unnecessary, particularly when you - yet again - go out of your way to disparage Boeing in your comments.

Okay, I guess the ex-Boeing employee with Boeing shares that only flies J and F should be able to tell others that fly Y about their own experiences, have I got that right? I hope Boeing's feelings isn't hurt that I don't like the way they design their products to make it as hard as it can be for Y passengers (there seems to be only 2 layout options in Y, super comfortable that only 1 airline goes for and the rest that both premium and LCC opt for). Can you tell me where to send a email to apologize for hurting the companies feelings?

And as long as customers pick the cheapest ticket, comfort is of no concern for the airline. Apart from that seat size is not linked to the plane type but to the airline. A A320 could have wider seats than a 737, but you still have airlines flying with a wider aisle and smaller seats.

enzo011 wrote:

Okay, I guess the ex-Boeing employee with Boeing shares that only flies J and F should be able to tell others that fly Y about their own experiences, have I got that right? I hope Boeing's feelings isn't hurt that I don't like the way they design their products to make it as hard as it can be for Y passengers (there seems to be only 2 layout options in Y, super comfortable that only 1 airline goes for and the rest that both premium and LCC opt for). Can you tell me where to send a email to apologize for hurting the companies feelings?

It's all about marketing!

If it made business sense for Boeing to build aeroplanes with 19" seats they would. The reality is it makes sense for them build aeroplanes with 17.5" seats, so that is what they do.

I think we have to remember the world doesn't revolve around what we want in the west. The fastest growing markets are in developing nations and if you want people in those markets to fly, you have to make it affordable. As such a 17.5" seat is a relatively good compromise.

As such, arguing if Boeing or Airbus builds better aircraft is subjective. The aircraft OEMs simply make a really good guess on what customers will more likely fly on for twenty years in to the future. As the OEM's plenty of smart minds to try and work it all out, we will just have to wait and see what eventuates. They could be right and they could be wrong!

My guess is the 787-10 will be the one who ends up going home with the girl. The 787-10 will be lighter, more economical and well placed to replace the 900 or so A330-300’s already in service and capture future growth in the market.

travelhound wrote:

enzo011 wrote:

Okay, I guess the ex-Boeing employee with Boeing shares that only flies J and F should be able to tell others that fly Y about their own experiences, have I got that right? I hope Boeing's feelings isn't hurt that I don't like the way they design their products to make it as hard as it can be for Y passengers (there seems to be only 2 layout options in Y, super comfortable that only 1 airline goes for and the rest that both premium and LCC opt for). Can you tell me where to send a email to apologize for hurting the companies feelings?

It's all about marketing!

If it made business sense for Boeing to build aeroplanes with 19" seats they would. The reality is it makes sense for them build aeroplanes with 17.5" seats, so that is what they do.

I think we have to remember the world doesn't revolve around what we want in the west. The fastest growing markets are in developing nations and if you want people in those markets to fly, you have to make it affordable. As such a 17.5" seat is a relatively good compromise.

As such, arguing if Boeing or Airbus builds better aircraft is subjective. The aircraft OEMs simply make a really good guess on what customers will more likely fly on for twenty years in to the future. As the OEM's plenty of smart minds to try and work it all out, we will just have to wait and see what eventuates. They could be right and they could be wrong!

My guess is the 787-10 will be the one who ends up going home with the girl. The 787-10 will be lighter, more economical and well placed to replace the 900 or so A330-300’s already in service and capture future growth in the market.

Agreed. I think the 787-10 will be the dark horse, covering both A333 and B772 market quite well. Perhaps not the extremes of the 772ER market; but certainly Transatlantic, ME-Europe, Asia-Aus\NZ, Eur-Africa, NA-SA, InterAsia... This is going to be a plane to have.

waly777 wrote:

WIederling wrote:

waly777 wrote:

I imagine the GE9X will also see pips over time too.

The brochure advantages of the 777X/GE9X combo are applicable at EIS ( 2020/21 )
relative advantage over the A350 referenced published targets for that frames EIS. ( 2017 )

i.e. for the three "interregnum years" the A350 turns into a moving target via airframe and engine tweaks.
IMU the smaller A35k could be on par for 779X EIS ( actually better by A350k to 779X scaling effects.)

From there on both start to move. Question is if both frames have similar design potential.

Those are quite a few assumptions based on your opinion. By that logic, the GE9x should see more PIPs as the XWB on the 35K is closer to max capability considering the changes required to get 97klb thrust. Fact remains, the XWB will get tweaks and improvements, as will the GE9X. Neither will be a standing target.

What he means is that by the time the 777X enters service, the A350 will have received its first PIP already (currently scheduled for 2019).

Matt6461 wrote:

You're focused on the wrong issue. The limit on belly cargo is typically volume, not weight. (again, where range isn't the issue. I'm only arguing that the structural reinforcement for excessive payload isn't worth the efficiency penalty)

Interestingly, Airbus seem to be doing the same on the A330neo: the OEW goes up but the MTOW remains unchanged (for now). Is the A330 volume limited as well?

Just out of curiosity, it would be interesting to know how much the 777 MTOW could grow without introducing significant changes to the airframe.

KarelXWB wrote:

Interestingly, Airbus seem to be doing the same on the A330neo: the OEW goes up but the MTOW remains unchanged (for now). Is the A330 volume limited as well?

Just out of curiosity, it would be interesting to know how much the 777 MTOW could grow without introducing significant changes to the airframe.

One would expect on a given route the neo wil have lower fuel burn so the same fraction of the total mass for fuel would be reduced. On medium haul routes the A330 can be landing weight limited.

KarelXWB wrote:

Just out of curiosity, it would be interesting to know how much the 777 MTOW could grow without introducing significant changes to the airframe.

I think they are there; that is why the 777X did not have any MTOW increase. They pushed it as far as it would go for the 77W.

SEPilot wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Just out of curiosity, it would be interesting to know how much the 777 MTOW could grow without introducing significant changes to the airframe.

I think they are there; that is why the 777X did not have any MTOW increase. They pushed it as far as it would go for the 77W.

Less of a structural thing than of gear loading afaics.
787 and 777 appear to be maxed out on pavement loading.

WIederling wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Just out of curiosity, it would be interesting to know how much the 777 MTOW could grow without introducing significant changes to the airframe.

I think they are there; that is why the 777X did not have any MTOW increase. They pushed it as far as it would go for the 77W.

Less of a structural thing than of gear loading afaics.
787 and 777 appear to be maxed out on pavement loading.

Yes, I realize that. But to increase the gear capacity means more wheels on the ground, which would be a MAJOR redesign. Much more difficult, in fact, than strengthening the structure. For the 777 it would likely mean another landing gear leg-I don't think 8 wheels on a bogey would work.

I have to cast some serious doubt on the idea that people shop based on seat measurements. The overwhelming majority of travelers:

1. Don't actually look for the seat measurements
2. Are aware air travel is uncomfortable, but the convenience outweighs it
3. Only spend a few hours each year in an airplane
4. Are willing to skimp on amenities to save money
5. Couldn't explain the difference between airlines, much less between planes

It's a really fun topic for us to chew the fat over, but I've only met a handful of people who have let this sort of thing stop them from traveling or cause them to spend more money.

travelhound wrote:

As such, arguing if Boeing or Airbus builds better aircraft is subjective.

Not when talking about Y pax comfort.

SEPilot wrote:

Yes, I realize that. But to increase the gear capacity means more wheels on the ground, which would be a MAJOR redesign. Much more difficult, in fact, than strengthening the structure. For the 777 it would likely mean another landing gear leg-I don't think 8 wheels on a bogey would work.

8 wheels would be a nightmare, the 777 already has tyre scrubbing issues and Airbus had to design in a complicated (and initially oversensitive) mechanism to articulate the trailing axle on their 6 tyre bogies.

An 8 wheel truck would mean limitations on turn radius and the screams of rubber across the airfields. Articulation might work but at what cost and complexity?

Boeing could possibly squeeze a little more out of the 777 bogie by spreading out the tyres similar to the wider stance of the A359. Again not an easy redesign but potentially the simplest.

Channex757 wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

Yes, I realize that. But to increase the gear capacity means more wheels on the ground, which would be a MAJOR redesign. Much more difficult, in fact, than strengthening the structure. For the 777 it would likely mean another landing gear leg-I don't think 8 wheels on a bogey would work.

8 wheels would be a nightmare, the 777 already has tyre scrubbing issues and Airbus had to design in a complicated (and initially oversensitive) mechanism to articulate the trailing axle on their 6 tyre bogies.

An 8 wheel truck would mean limitations on turn radius and the screams of rubber across the airfields. Articulation might work but at what cost and complexity?

Boeing could possibly squeeze a little more out of the 777 bogie by spreading out the tyres similar to the wider stance of the A359. Again not an easy redesign but potentially the simplest.

I think spreading the tires would only gain a little, and would still be a huge job because the wheel wells would have to be enlarged-which I do not think would be easy. Adding a center gear would probably be the most likely way of doing it-but Boeing is not doing anything, so I guess they are satisfied with the MTOW they can get. But if they up the weight again they will have to do something. My vote would be for a center leg.

I'm not really sure more weight/MTOW for the 777X is something that most airlines are calling for.

The ME3 have all ordered the 777X, and they are the ones who would most likely want even more capability from the frame. The 777X is already overkill for most operations.

enzo011 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Boy, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. Seriously, disparaging Stitch like that is quite unnecessary, particularly when you - yet again - go out of your way to disparage Boeing in your comments.

Okay, I guess the ex-Boeing employee with Boeing shares that only flies J and F should be able to tell others that fly Y about their own experiences, have I got that right? I hope Boeing's feelings isn't hurt that I don't like the way they design their products to make it as hard as it can be for Y passengers (there seems to be only 2 layout options in Y, super comfortable that only 1 airline goes for and the rest that both premium and LCC opt for). Can you tell me where to send a email to apologize for hurting the companies feelings?

Your feelings about Boeing are clear in every thread you post in. My comment wasn't about Boeing - it was about disparaging a fellow poster as a means of proving something. That you so easily trash someone in an attempt to prove some elusive bias is unfortunate. If I had a dollar for every time Stitch applauded the A380 over the 777, I'd be able to have a nice dinner out.

Zeke wrote:

On medium haul routes the A330 can be landing weight limited.

Why does this happen on medium haul routes specifically? Something about fuel reserves?

Yes, happens when carrying a high ZFW out to the kink at MTOW. Depending on seating configuration and the reserve rules, payload may need to be reduced to stay under the MLW. Other airplanes, like the 772ER, have the same issue.

Thanks that makes sense. I guess 30min holding and X% reserve is much greater with a high payload, and the airline can't just plan to spray the area with fuel before landing.

Based on the information and measurements mentioned in the Boeing 779 PDF document, I have calculated various LOPA options for 3 and 2 class layouts. See here http://airline-news.blogspot.com/2017/0 ... ation.html

behramjee wrote:

Based on the information and measurements mentioned in the Boeing 779 PDF document, I have calculated various LOPA options for 3 and 2 class layouts. See here http://airline-news.blogspot.com/2017/0 ... ation.html

The single class calculation is redundant as the exit limit is limited at 475 passengers.

Emirates have publicly stated the configuration for their 777-9s in two classes will be 440 [49J | 391Y].

seahawk wrote:

817Dreamliiner wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Has anyone done the math around the feasability of 11 abreast 777x ? I know it would be very tight (9 abreat A330/10 abreast A350 tight) but would it be possible ?

Seat width at 11 abreast would be:

~16.27" with 1.5" armrests and 17" aisles
~16.7" with 1" armrests and 18" aisles
~15.8" with 2" armrests and 16" aisles

Based on minimum aisle width requirements.

I hope this will come in the future. It will help to reduce the ticket price further or keep it constant in face of rising costs.

16,7" seat, 1" armrest and 28" pitch.

Together with an additional exit this becomes interesting to AirAsiaX, Cebu, Air Caraibes, etc
All Y capacity of 600 maybe?

LA704 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

817Dreamliiner wrote:

Seat width at 11 abreast would be:

~16.27" with 1.5" armrests and 17" aisles
~16.7" with 1" armrests and 18" aisles
~15.8" with 2" armrests and 16" aisles

Based on minimum aisle width requirements.

I hope this will come in the future. It will help to reduce the ticket price further or keep it constant in face of rising costs.

16,7" seat, 1" armrest and 28" pitch.

Together with an additional exit this becomes interesting to AirAsiaX, Cebu, Air Caraibes, etc
All Y capacity of 600 maybe?

The 777X is door limited afaik.

LA704 wrote:

Together with an additional exit this becomes interesting to AirAsiaX, Cebu, Air Caraibes, etc. All Y capacity of 600 maybe?

Maximum would be 550 if Boeing had kept the overwing Type A door. However, Boeing specifically deleted the fifth Type A door because no operator requested it and it will lighten the frame. I expect most, if all, customers won't actually equip the optional Type III door (instead plugging it to lower weight and allow seats to be placed there).

KarelXWB wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

You're focused on the wrong issue. The limit on belly cargo is typically volume, not weight. (again, where range isn't the issue. I'm only arguing that the structural reinforcement for excessive payload isn't worth the efficiency penalty)

Interestingly, Airbus seem to be doing the same on the A330neo: the OEW goes up but the MTOW remains unchanged (for now). Is the A330 volume limited as well?

Just out of curiosity, it would be interesting to know how much the 777 MTOW could grow without introducing significant changes to the airframe.

I would venture that under almost any circumstance the A330's cargo capability is volume limited (again, assuming it is not range-limited).
This is maybe not the case for, e.g., AirAsiaX's super-dense birds on short flights with LCC customers not checking bags.

Re the 777, I always thought the MLG and pavement-loading issues were the limitations on MTOW, as others have suggested.
Then again, Boeing was/is shopping a 777-10 so maybe there's additional MTOW room or maybe there's a cheapish MLG adaptation. ? OTOH he -10 could have been a shorter-range version.

KarelXWB wrote:

Interestingly, Airbus seem to be doing the same on the A330neo: the OEW goes up but the MTOW remains unchanged (for now). Is the A330 volume limited as well?

Just out of curiosity, it would be interesting to know how much the 777 MTOW could grow without introducing significant changes to the airframe.

IMO the 777 has reached the limit of the current MLG. There is a reason the 747 has two wing and two fuselage MLG and the A340-600 a middle MLG.
The A340-600 has the same number of wheels but 3 four wheel bogies distribute the weight over a bigger area than 2 six wheel bogies.

Flightglobal is reporting further definition of preliminary design details and interior arrangement

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ls-436374/

The article is based on the ACAP document that Boeing published several weeks ago.

Is there a max passenger threshold over which Boeing has to redo the emergency evacuation test/drill? The one-class config in the 777-9X looks to be in the high 400s. Would it be legal?

I guess the same question goes for the 737-10.

chiki wrote:

Flightglobal is reporting further definition of preliminary design details and interior arrangement

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ls-436374/

The article says:

The folded wingspan of the 777-9 measures 64.82m, about 2.54cm wider than the 777-300ER.

Might just as well have said "1 inch wider", no? Or would that dignify the imperial measurements too much?

Revelation wrote:

chiki wrote:

Flightglobal is reporting further definition of preliminary design details and interior arrangement

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ls-436374/

The article says:

The folded wingspan of the 777-9 measures 64.82m, about 2.54cm wider than the 777-300ER.

Might just as well have said "1 inch wider", no? Or would that dignify the imperial measurements too much?

So I'm guessing someone was quoted as saying "about an inch", which an overly pedantic editor then converted to International Standard for the benefit of most of the world who doesn't know what an inch is.

Probably would have been better to say something like "a few centimetres" given the context.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Revelation wrote:

chiki wrote:

Flightglobal is reporting further definition of preliminary design details and interior arrangement

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ls-436374/

The article says:

The folded wingspan of the 777-9 measures 64.82m, about 2.54cm wider than the 777-300ER.

Might just as well have said "1 inch wider", no? Or would that dignify the imperial measurements too much?

So I'm guessing someone was quoted as saying "about an inch", which an overly pedantic editor then converted to International Standard for the benefit of most of the world who doesn't know what an inch is.

Probably would have been better to say something like "a few centimetres" given the context.

Probably, although this pendant finds it strange to see "about" used when the number is stated to sub-millimeter precision. Seems the presumed editor has better literacy than numeracy...

ssteve wrote:

Is there a max passenger threshold over which Boeing has to redo the emergency evacuation test/drill? The one-class config in the 777-9X looks to be in the high 400s. Would it be legal?

As the 777X is a derivative design, it would be grandfathered in under the original 777-200 evacuation test.

The Exit Limit for the 777-9 will be 475 with four Type A and one Type III Exit Doors. I expect most, if not all, operators will omit the Type III door and therefore the Exit Limit will be 440.

I winder what the manufacturing tolerances are for the wing. I suspect even different ambient temperatures would have an affect on its overall length.

Devilfish wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Seems the presumed editor has better literacy than numeracy...

Or.....2.54 is more impressive than 1..... Although to be fair, the preceeding dimension was metric so the editor was just maintaining uniformity.

But they added two significant figures, implying a much higher resolution than the presumable "about 1 inch" comment from Boeing.

Each .01cm is about .004". So when you say about 2.54 cm that has about the same accuracy as saying about .996 inch - much higher accuracy than about 1 inch.

The appropriate writing should be "about 3 cm" wider or "over 2 cm" wider or some such figure with one significant figure.

Stitch wrote:

ssteve wrote:

Is there a max passenger threshold over which Boeing has to redo the emergency evacuation test/drill? The one-class config in the 777-9X looks to be in the high 400s. Would it be legal?

As the 777X is a derivative design, it would be grandfathered in under the original 777-200 evacuation test.

The Exit Limit for the 777-9 will be 475 with four Type A and one Type III Exit Doors. I expect most, if not all, operators will omit the Type III door and therefore the Exit Limit will be 440.

why -200 not -300?

c933103 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

ssteve wrote:

Is there a max passenger threshold over which Boeing has to redo the emergency evacuation test/drill? The one-class config in the 777-9X looks to be in the high 400s. Would it be legal?

As the 777X is a derivative design, it would be grandfathered in under the original 777-200 evacuation test.

The Exit Limit for the 777-9 will be 475 with four Type A and one Type III Exit Doors. I expect most, if not all, operators will omit the Type III door and therefore the Exit Limit will be 440.

why -200 not -300?

I'm assuming because the -200 was the originally certified model.

c933103 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

ssteve wrote:

Is there a max passenger threshold over which Boeing has to redo the emergency evacuation test/drill? The one-class config in the 777-9X looks to be in the high 400s. Would it be legal?

As the 777X is a derivative design, it would be grandfathered in under the original 777-200 evacuation test.

The Exit Limit for the 777-9 will be 475 with four Type A and one Type III Exit Doors. I expect most, if not all, operators will omit the Type III door and therefore the Exit Limit will be 440.

why -200 not -300?

As PlanesNTrains noted, the 777-200 was the model initially certified. The 777-200ER, 777-200LR, 777-300 and 777-300ER all leveraged that initial certification, just as the 777-8 and 777-9 shall.

Don't ever think grandfathering is some form of cheating. It is a legitimate practice , as the best form of testing is done in the real world!

travelhound wrote:

Don't ever think grandfathering is some form of cheating. It is a legitimate practice , as the best form of testing is done in the real world!

No, its cheating as grandfathering allows derivitives to be certified to a lower safety standard than a new design.

And there is the nail being hit squarely on the head!

BoeingVista wrote:

travelhound wrote:

Don't ever think grandfathering is some form of cheating. It is a legitimate practice , as the best form of testing is done in the real world!

No, its cheating as grandfathering allows derivitives to be certified to a lower safety standard than a new design.

In what way exactly does grandfathering exit limits compromise safety by certification to a lower standard? Or do you have other examples of grandfathering that show this?

AFAIK, derivatives are tested just rigorously as new designs for safety... though new designs like the 787 (electrics) and 380 (size) do bring in additional testing challenges.

waly777 wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

travelhound wrote:

Don't ever think grandfathering is some form of cheating. It is a legitimate practice , as the best form of testing is done in the real world!

No, its cheating as grandfathering allows derivitives to be certified to a lower safety standard than a new design.

In what way exactly does grandfathering exit limits compromise safety by certification to a lower standard? Or do you have other examples of grandfathering that show this?

AFAIK, derivatives are tested just rigorously as new designs for safety... though new designs like the 787 (electrics) and 380 (size) do bring in additional testing challenges.

Grandfathering by definition protects an old design on a new airplane, that would not make it through certification today. So in what way can grandfathering NOT lead to a lower standard, than new certified?

mjoelnir wrote:

waly777 wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

No, its cheating as grandfathering allows derivitives to be certified to a lower safety standard than a new design.

In what way exactly does grandfathering exit limits compromise safety by certification to a lower standard? Or do you have other examples of grandfathering that show this?

AFAIK, derivatives are tested just rigorously as new designs for safety... though new designs like the 787 (electrics) and 380 (size) do bring in additional testing challenges.

Grandfathering by definition protects an old design on a new airplane, that would not make it through certification today. So in what way can grandfathering NOT lead to a lower standard, than new certified?

Spinning the question around i not an answer, I assume my question was clear. Give examples of grandfathering that show lower standard is accepted. Exit limit is a common example and clearly this does not compromise safety or a lower standard.

Do you have further examples to prove the point? Because it sounds like an assumption/opinion but stated like a fact.

It is commonly said on here that one of the reasons that the 737 frame is lighter than the 320 is because it was certified to earlier standards. Now there are two things.

Why did those standards change if not to make planes safer?
Why did they need to change the 737 is obviously a very safe plane?

StTim wrote:

It is commonly said on here that one of the reasons that the 737 frame is lighter than the 320 is because it was certified to earlier standards. Now there are two things.

Why did those standards change if not to make planes safer?
Why did they need to change the 737 is obviously a very safe plane?

I would assume the lighter weight of the 737NG vs the 320 is due to the narrower fuselage, not grandfathering. What standards exactly were changed?

Revelation wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Revelation wrote:

The article says:


Might just as well have said "1 inch wider", no? Or would that dignify the imperial measurements too much?

So I'm guessing someone was quoted as saying "about an inch", which an overly pedantic editor then converted to International Standard for the benefit of most of the world who doesn't know what an inch is.

Probably would have been better to say something like "a few centimetres" given the context.

Probably, although this pendant finds it strange to see "about" used when the number is stated to sub-millimeter precision. Seems the presumed editor has better literacy than numeracy...

The "inch" is defined as exactly 25.4 mm ( i.e. metric system derived unit. .... except for the US "survey inch" being defined as
3937 survey inch = 100 m
1 survey inch = 100⁄3937 m ≈ 25,4000508 mm
)
So if you convert 1 inch to metric you get 25.4 mm, no rounding or excess resolution necessary .

all a bit gaga

waly777 wrote:

I would assume the lighter weight of the 737NG vs the 320 is due to the narrower fuselage, not grandfathering. What standards exactly were changed?

MTOW difference is 79t vs 78t.

IMU some "achieved height above runway" at the end of the runway
and initial climb (all one engine out, requires more installed thrust).
Cabin g forces : 9g --> ?14?g,
But new seating has to be 14g certified. mixing a 9g fuselage with ?14?g seats.
( again IMU the broken up fuselage of the AMS TK 737 crash could be indicative here.)