That sounds like a plausible explanation, Distiller. Sound’s like BAE are trying cover themselves for not investing money in more modern techniques. Makes sense – the article coming from a UK Engineering mag.

I must say also I find it pointless when B and A fight over these things. Boeing used to carp endlessly about Airbus’s FBW system when they launched the A320, so this kind of thing goes back a long way.

2 Engines 2 kick Airbus Asssss- 😮

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

Do you work for boeing or something
😀

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

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.