This makes sense for ULR ops given the payload restrictions. OTOH it limits the frame's usefulness if "misused" on shorter hops. With a super-low-density configuration, however, short hop misuse is perhaps so far suboptimal that it mightn't have been planned.
A few questions:
- What is the weight saving from omitting the forward cargo loading infrastructure? Does that infrastructure typically include integral pullies/rams for moving boxes or is that equipment loaded/unloaded at gates?
- Do we think - or does anyone know - that the ULR will lack cargo hold floor beams? Or would that present too much of an obstacle to paper recertification from ULR to standard? What would the weight implication of losing cargo floor beams be? I've read that pax floor beams are ~5 lbs/ft2; I could see cargo beams being more (due to higher density) or less (due to no 16g survivability requirement).
- Placing all luggage in the rear hold means an aft-heavy weight distribution at full ULR load (173 pax). Combined with J/Y fore/aft layout, the effect increases. I guess I'm wondering what scope airliners typically have for balance/stability. Is this only possible due to A350's cruise camber modification capabilities?