the front through to meeting and office space then cabins for guests and the media the aNUMBER_TOKEN could expand any of these areas or introduce new sections for private use the options extend even further a concept designed for a vip aNUMBER_TOKEN introduced three decks by using part of the cargo area this has space for a car garage and turkish bath and two full decks of living and working space the top deck was used as an exclusive residence and lounge area for vvips an aNUMBER_TOKEN private jet would offer an excellent range airbus quotes the standard range of the aNUMBER_TOKEN as NUMBER_TOKEN nautical miles or NUMBER_TOKEN NUMBER_TOKEN kilometers this is higher than the NUMBER_TOKEN by just under NUMBER_TOKEN nautical miles a private jet configuration would carry fewer passengers and seating and therefore would be capable of even longer flights how much longer is not entirely clear airbus's technical data shows that for minimal payloads the range could be increased to around NUMBER_TOKEN NUMBER_TOKEN kilometers that gives the potential for direct flights from the uk and europe to australia in fact we've already seen direct flights from london to darwin at the start of the pandemic the aNUMBER_TOKEN also has a higher payload capacity than the NUMBER_TOKEN its maximum takeoff weight is NUMBER_TOKEN NUMBER_TOKEN kilograms compared to NUMBER_TOKEN NUMBER_TOKEN kilograms for the NUMBER_TOKEN this gives a payload in standard configuration of NUMBER_TOKEN NUMBER_TOKEN kilograms instead of NUMBER_TOKEN NUMBER_TOKEN kilograms this of course is normally more relevant when looking at cargo operations but depending on a private aircraft's exact use or fittings a fleet of cars perhaps it could be relevant despite looking fairly promising on paper we have yet to see a private aNUMBER_TOKEN and possibly we never will the reasons why the aNUMBER_TOKEN has not worked out as well as hoped for airbus or operating airlines have been well discussed many of these are relevant for a private jet version as well size the boeing NUMBER_TOKEN has worked as a private jet for several governments and individuals but there is a limit to the size needed by any private user does anyone really need all that space when the NUMBER_TOKEN already offers so much efficiency and operating cost as we've often discussed heavy four engine aircraft have had their day twins are most efficient with a lower operating cost and can offer a similar range a private aNUMBER_TOKEN or triple seven can take advantage of this or even the new triple seven x for a flagship private jet airport restrictions size has been a major limitation for the aNUMBER_TOKEN its wingspan places it into the highest airport operating category severely limiting the cities to which it can fly this can still work for an airline with a choice of which routes it schedules aNUMBER_TOKENs on but for a private operator this would severely limit its use and flexibility to add some commercial context consider a recent discussion simple flying hand with comlock's aviation ceo andrea zanetto comlux aviation is a world leader in handling vip aircraft operations and works with the boeing NUMBER_TOKEN triple seven and NUMBER_TOKEN sonetto confirmed that the limitations of size efficiency and airport operations would in his view keep the aNUMBER_TOKEN out of private aviation he told us i think not even governments would go that way and for private you generally don't buy a castle if you want to have a luxury home you cannot land anywhere you just lean to main hubs this is not an aircraft for private aviation there are too many limitations on the aircraft there's also an element of a first mover advantage going on boeing has offered the NUMBER_TOKEN for a lot longer it has already taken several customers for
NO_SEGMENT_TOKEN