Vs 777

I remember reading that part of the reason that Singapore sold their A-340’s for 777’s was the slow climb rate, which in the Pacifac with large T-storms etc was causing alot of delays and rerouting
I find it hard to believe that the 343 is cheaper to fly then the 777 and that the 777 is only a few % points cheaper than the Mad Dog 11, but I trust you guys, Thanks
TTP

Who have now just gone and bought a whole load of A343s from Singapore 😉

That’s what I was going to say. I don’t think EK ever had the A340 prior to taking these 2nd hand ex-SQ birds. Or did they?

Emirates is another airline, they ditched their A343’s for 777s.

Who have now just gone and bought a whole load of A343s from Singapore 😉

2 Engines 2 kick Airbus Asssss- 😮

C’mon can’t yer guys do better than that :confused:

Do you work for boeing or something
😀

I too agree!! 😀

And I too! 😎

South African Airways ditched their 777’s which they had ordered in favour of Airbuses when it was realised the Boeing’s werent going to make it over the South ATlantic or the Southern Ocean.

Cathay + EVA and many others go for Airbuses to avoid ETOPS problems over the pacific

etc etc etc etc

both good planes, but different though

Iberia is not one of the world’s greatest carriers, maybe its the workman and not tools which is to blame.

Ask Cathay or VS or Air France or Lufthansa how good the A340 is.

Emirates is another airline, they ditched their A343’s for 777s.
Qatar are apprently looking to replace their 343s, looking at the a345 with keen interest.

Air France and Lufthansa’s opinions mean d!ck, they’re best friends with Airbus, Air France especially, and so will not mention one bad word about the a343

Iberia is not one of the world’s greatest carriers, maybe its the workman and not tools which is to blame.

Ask Cathay or VS or Air France or Lufthansa how good the A340 is.

The A340-300 is an underpowered scrap heap on wings. You’re better of with the 500 or 600.

A 22 year old Boeing 747-200 has better performance than an A343! As attested by Iberia.

The climb restriction applies particularly to the 777-3ER, I’m just not sure about the 200.

The advantage of the 343 over the 767 is that it carries +-70 more seats, more cargo space and no etops restrictions.

But dont forget it can also do 14 hour flights provided the pax payload is lowered to reduce TO weight.

…cheaper than the Mega Death-11.

LOL, nice! That’s the first I hear of that one!

The trick with the A340 is not to use it for long range, ie 12 hour flights. It works very well on 7-10 hour flights and handles full payload well in this area.

Well, that more or less counter-acts the purpose of the A343, which if I’m not mistaken, was designed to be an “ultra-long range aircraft.” Airbus was even touting is as the “longest range aircraft in the world,” long before the the A345 and the 772ER was around. That’s a pretty bold statement, considering the existance of one 747-400. Besides, on 7-10 hour segments, who needs an A340 when a 767 can do the job just fine!

BTW… the 777-3 can only climb at full power to 31 000ft before it develops serious aerodynamic buffeting, it then has to be nursed very carefully to get any higher. I’m not sure if this problem affects the -200.

Does this apply to the 773ER as well?

There’s an official Airbus diagram that shows the A340 is 8% cheaper to fly than the 777-2er and 14% cheaper than the Mega Death-11. Somebody posted it here at one stage.

Yes the A340 is slow in the climb, it has a lot of payload restrictions at high temps, and high runway altitude because the low engine power. The trick with the A340 is not to use it for long range, ie 12 hour flights. It works very well on 7-10 hour flights and handles full payload well in this area.

BTW… the 777-3 can only climb at full power to 31 000ft before it develops serious aerodynamic buffeting, it then has to be nursed very carefully to get any higher. I’m not sure if this problem affects the -200.

The A340 is indeed a slow climber. That does not usually matter for very long range, but on short/medium range the 777 will beat it. It may burn up more fuel on take-off but it gets faster to the most efficient cruise level thus offsetting the added expense.

As for economics. That is just impossible to say. There are too many variables to say that A is better than B (or vice versa). What routes are being flown, weight, cargo, hot&high requirement, ETOPS requirement and so on and so on.

Does anybody know the economics of the 777 vs the A-340? I remember reading a few years back about Singapore trading in their 340’s for 777’s and them citing very strong reasons for doing so…like the 340’s couldn’t climb to altitude fast enough for thier operations, just curious…..
TTP
please don’t make this an Airbus vs boeing thread, just facts please

I like that one.

I too agree!! 😀

They’re not allowed to say the price mentioned by Boeing. Its unfair and basically bad form.

Well i would leaves Airbus chances out yet as if virgin do the sensible thing and ask airbus “boeing are giving me the 777 for £xxxxxx, how much is an A340?”

Id rather see more Airbus in their fleet like A330 or A340. Strange they are even looking at Boeing given their previous stance of converting to all Airbus…

Probably because Boeing are trying to woo them with attractive deals like buy one get one free on the 777.

Id rather see more Airbus in their fleet like A330 or A340. Strange they are even looking at Boeing given their previous stance of converting to all Airbus…

“Two time your way across the Atlantic”

“Etops for pond hops”

“Smell a stink, then in the drink”