Challenger 300 Vs 350


Consult With An Bombardier Challenger 300 Expert

Challenger 300 Vs 350Our clients trust us to guide them in there next aviation purchase or sale. Are you in the market for an Challenger 300 for sale or comparable private jet? Contact aviation expert Jason Cooper at Aerojet Solutions for a private consultation.

Challenger 300 Vs 350

Model Challenger 300 Challenger 350
Crew two two
Capacity eight to nine nine (standard)
Length 68.63 ft / 20.92 m 68.63 ft / 20.92 m
Span 63.84 ft / 19.46 m 69 ft 0 in / 21.0 m
Height 20.33 ft / 6.20 m 20 ft 0 in / 6.1 m
Wing Area 523 ft2 / 48.5 m2 523 ft2 / 48.5 m2
Aspect ratio 7.81 9.09
MTOW 38,850 lb / 17,622 kg 40,600 lb / 18,416 kg
OEW 23,500 lb / 10,659 kg 24,800 lb / 11,249 kg
Fuel capacity 14,150 lb / 6,418 kg 14,150 lb / 6,418 kg
Maximum payload 3,500 lb / 1,588 kg 3,400 lb / 1,542 kg
Wing loading 74.3 lb/ft2/ 363.3 kg/m2 77.6 lb/ft2 / 379.7 kg/m2
Turbofans (2×) Honeywell HTF7000 Honeywell HTF7350
Thrust 6,826 lbf / 30.4 kN 7,323 lbf / 33 kN

 

 

  Challenger 300 Vs 350  Challenger 300 Vs 350 Challenger 300 Vs 350 Challenger 300 Vs 350 Challenger 300 Vs 350 Challenger 300 Vs 350 Challenger 300 Vs 350 Challenger 300 Vs 350 Challenger 300 Vs 350

 

International Aviation News

New record of travelers in the Spanish airports of the Aena network with 275,237,801 who have traveled in just over 2.3 million flights, and of which 274.4 million flew on commercial flights, while the rest did in what Aena qualifies as other types of flights: state, ambulance, tourist flights, school, and so on.

 

Of the total passengers, according to Aena data, 188.8 million traveled on international flights, representing an increase of 3.5 percent compared to 2018, and 85.5 million, an additional 6.4 percent, They did on domestic flights.

 

According to Aena figures, 2,360,957 aircraft operated in its Spanish airports in 2019, 2.6 percent more than in the previous year. This figure differs from that provided by Enaire since both entities count aircraft movements differently by including Aena airplanes that move inside the airport to change parking positions or for maintenance.

 

Madrid Barajas was, once again, the first Spanish airport for tickets, movements and merchandise, while that of Barcelona El Prat was the second for passengers and movements, being surpassed by Zaragoza for merchandise.

 

The airports of Burgos (71.0 percent) and Badajoz (44.8 percent) and the Ceuta heliport (37.3 percent) stand out for the growth they have had for passengers who have passed their facilities, while those of Huesca (-57.8 percent), Vigo (-10.4 percent) and Logroño (-9.1 percent) have lost the most. We do not include the decrease described in the statistics of the Murcia-San Javier airport since this airport was replaced by the new one in Murcia.

 

Burgos (52.4 percent), Badajoz (45.1 percent) and Córdoba (40.5 percent) grew the most in aircraft movements, and those in Fuerteventura (-8.4 percent), Vigo (-8.0 percent), and Pamplona (-4.5 percent) the ones that lost the most flights.

 

Burgos has also been the airport that has grown the most in merchandise with an increase of 2,377.9, followed by Jerez de la Frontera (19.4 percent) and Malaga (11.3 percent). On the contrary, Almería (-97.9 percent), San Sebastián (-94.0 percent)), and Valladolid (-92.8 percent) are the ones that have lost the most air cargo in 2019 compared to 2018.

 

The withdrawal of this limit also means the withdrawal of any mandatory sales order that had been sent to shareholders outside the European Union according to those same statutes. These indicate that if the maximum mark is reached, people or companies outside the European Union cannot acquire more IAG shares and that the last shareholders outside the European Union are forced to sell a part of their shares to people or entities of the union to restore balance. Learn more about Challenger 300 Vs 350 here, THANK YOU FOR VISITING OUR Challenger 300 Vs 350 page.

 

Norwegian Continues To Bet On Profitability In January

 

For almost a year, Norwegian has been sacrificing growth in routes and passengers in search of greater economic profitability. For almost a year, Norwegian has been sacrificing in growth in routes and passengers in search of greater economic profitability.

The Norwegian low cost airline has continued in January reducing its operation but increasing its unit revenue.

 

Last January, Norwegian closed it with a 25 percent decrease in the number of passengers it transported in relation to January 2018, remaining at 1,974,606, but increasing the average occupancy of its aircraft by 4.8 points percent, up to 80.9 percent.

 

Meanwhile, in the accumulated twelve months, from January 31, 2018 to January 31, 2019, it has seen its passengers descend 6 percent, remaining at 35,531,118, with an average occupancy increase of 1.9 points , to 87.1 percent.

 

This decrease in the number of passengers transported is reflected in the offer of seats, which in January 2020 has decreased by 20 percent measured in kilometer seats offered (AKO) to 5,832 million, while in the aforementioned cumulative fall is of 3 percent

 

However, in line with the airline's plan to increase its profitability, in January it has managed to increase by 15 percent the average revenue per passenger to 0.40 Norwegian krona and by 22 percent the profit by AKO up to 0.32 Norwegian crowns.

 

Jacob Schram, CEO of Norwegian has stated: “I am pleased that we continue to comply with the strategy of moving from growth to profitability. For ten consecutive months, including this January, the planned reduction in capacity has had a positive effect on unit income and average occupancy. I am also pleased that our punctuality continues to improve, since I know how important it is for our clients. In the coming months, I hope to work together with my committed colleagues, both on land and in the air, to position Norwegian in the face of a profitable and sustainable future in international aviation ”.

 

 

Challenger 300 Vs 350

 

 

 


 

 challenger 300 vs 350 challenger 300 vs 350 challenger 300 vs 350 challenger 300 vs 350 challenger 300 vs 350 challenger 300 vs 350 challenger 300 vs 350 challenger 300 vs 350 challenger 300 vs 350 challenger 300 vs 350 challenger 300 vs 350 challenger 300 vs 350 challenger 300 vs 350