Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX  
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9635 posts, RR: 68
Posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9563 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

According to Boeing, the 777-200LR, on a "typical long-range route (e.g., LAX-SIN)," is:

  • Able to carry 21 more passengers

  • Able to carry 22,300 more pounds of "revenue cargo"

  • Use 22,000 liters (5,800 gallons) less fuel

    Are these figures accurate? If so, it seems like a no-brainer that airlines would choose the 772LR over the A345.

  • 56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
     
    User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26534 posts, RR: 75
    Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9463 times:

    >Able to carry 21 more passengers<

    It is actually more than that

    >Able to carry 22,300 more pounds of "revenue cargo"<

    SQ can carry no cargo EWR-SIN, while the 772LR will do about 16,000 pounds

    >Use 22,000 liters (5,800 gallons) less fuel<

    Might be even less if the 773ER is any indication

    >Are these figures accurate? If so, it seems like a no-brainer that airlines would choose the 772LR over the A345.<

    Yes they are, even more so, and you probably just created a thread that will last 2 months and get 300 responses



    Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
    User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12189 posts, RR: 18
    Reply 2, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9383 times:
    AIRLINERS.NET CREW
    FORUM MODERATOR

    Able to carry 21 more passengers
    Able to carry 22,300 more pounds of "revenue cargo"
    Use 22,000 liters (5,800 gallons) less fuel
    Are these figures accurate?


    As Boeing is a very respectable aircraft builder then I don't think Boeing would publish or state things if they believe it was not possible. Boeing stated things about the B773ER and Boeing got better results then what they believed was possible.

    it seems like a no-brainer that airlines would choose the 772LR over the A345. Once the B772LR flys and boeing are correct, or even better results are achieved then what Boeing believed was possible then once airlines relise that the B772LR performs better then the A345 then expect a mass migration on orders for the B772LR


    User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 3, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9362 times:

    migration on orders

    ...what orders? The A345 ain't exactly sellin' like pancakes.


    User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12189 posts, RR: 18
    Reply 4, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9335 times:
    AIRLINERS.NET CREW
    FORUM MODERATOR

    ...what orders? The A345 ain't exactly sellin' like pancakes.
    maybe because the A345 has not really been proven yet. Another reason why the A345 has not been selling like hot cakes is because of the worlds aviation industry at the moment. 21 A345s have been sold compared to 4 B772LRs


    User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 5, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9260 times:

    maybe because the A345 has not really been proven yet

    It's been pushed to the maximum of its performance capability for months, as well as performed in the B-market for over a year now.

    Some [relatively] short time I know-- but so far as performance profile is concerned, not that much more "proving" left.




    21 A345s have been sold compared to 4 B772LRs

    ...ya might wanna doublecheck those numbers bub.  Big grin


    User currently offlineBoeingfever777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 409 posts, RR: 53
    Reply 6, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9253 times:

    21 A345s have been sold compared to 4 B772LRs

    What are the correct figs?



    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre.
    User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12189 posts, RR: 18
    Reply 7, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9228 times:
    AIRLINERS.NET CREW
    FORUM MODERATOR

    ConcordeBoy

    I got the figs from airbus.com


    User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 8, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9171 times:

    ...ah, there's your first mistake right there  Laugh out loud

    User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 9, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9167 times:

    Fred,

    so what are the right numbers? Why don't you provide them?


    Here it is:

    5 B772LR vs 25 A345. Simple as that.



    Regards
    Udo


    User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 10, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9142 times:

    Why don't you provide them?

    ...what'd be the fun in that?  Nuts


    User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 11, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9126 times:

    Oh I see, it would hurt you personally...  Wink/being sarcastic


    Regards
    Udo


    User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12189 posts, RR: 18
    Reply 12, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9104 times:
    AIRLINERS.NET CREW
    FORUM MODERATOR

    Udo

    Or maybe ConcordeBoy doesn't have access to the figures


    User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12570 posts, RR: 46
    Reply 13, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9098 times:
    Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

    ConcordeBoy

    I got the figs from airbus.com


    Yes, he wasn't moaning about the Airbus numbers (although he hates them  Laugh out loud), but the fact that you'd understated Boeing's sales of 772LRs by a whole 1!

    The customers -

    Boeing 772LR
    PIA 2
    EVA 3

    Airbus A340-500
    Air Canada 2
    Emirates 10
    Qatar (Emiri) 1
    Singapore 5
    Thai 3
    plus announced but not signed yet
    Etihad 4
    Thai 1

    I don't believe I've missed any announced 772LR orders, but I'm sure Concordeboy will be along very soon to correct me if I'm wrong.

    So there won't be any mass migration at all, because the sales of pax VLR aircraft currently totals less than 30.



    Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
    User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 14, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9093 times:

    I'm quite sure he has access, but he only gives figures which he likes...but he doesn't have to do it, we do it for him!  Laugh out loud


    Regards
    Udo


    User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26534 posts, RR: 75
    Reply 15, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9068 times:

    >I'm quite sure he has access, but he only gives figures which he likes...but he doesn't have to do it, we do it for him!<

    It seems more often that he is the one who has to post the figures you don't like, you know the ones that tell how much the 777 outperforms the A340



    Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
    User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12189 posts, RR: 18
    Reply 16, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9069 times:
    AIRLINERS.NET CREW
    FORUM MODERATOR

    So there won't be any mass migration at all What about after all the airlines crisies are over, fuel returns to descent prices etc?

    I'm quite sure he has access, but he only gives figures which he likes...but he doesn't have to do it, we do it for him! Fair Enough


    User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 17, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9036 times:

    I don't believe I've missed any announced 772LR orders, but I'm sure Concordeboy will be along very soon to correct me if I'm wrong.

    ...indeed:
    just to add, GECAS has an LOI for eight 772LRs which has yet to be firmed.




    What about after all the airlines crisies are over, fuel returns to descent prices etc?

    ...what about it?

    That still won't facilitate the need for C-market aircraft in the overwhelming majority of airlines, and very few of them haul payload on routes such that a C-market aircraft would be used nigh-exclusively B-markt.


    User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 18, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9003 times:

    >It seems more often that he is the one who has to post the figures you >don't like, you know the ones that tell how much the 777 outperforms the >A340

    Oh my dear! I know that the B777 outperforms the A340 in terms of seat mile costs, payload, range or other figures. The A340's advantage is elsewhere, e.g. lower price tag, no ETOPS restrictions, commonality with other Airbus types and so on.
    HOWEVER, the decision to operate a certain type depends on some hundred different aspects. Taking all these aspects into consideration, certain airlines find the B777 more economic to operate, certain airlines the A340. It's so simple.

    There's no reason to keep back figures or get emotional about the issues. And are there figure that I don't like? Not really, only in your imagination. I like all aircraft, no matter if A, B, C, D, E...

    And from a passenger point of view, I would always prefer a B777 over an A340 (-200/300)...because I don't like falling asleep on take off. And in German I like to call the A340 (-200/300) a "Staubsauger" which means "vacuum cleaner".  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
    Any questions left? Or anything else to "pawloff" about?  Wink/being sarcastic


    Regards
    Udo


    User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 852 posts, RR: 2
    Reply 19, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 8984 times:

    What routes can -LR do with full pax n cargo that 345 can´t?

    Micke//SE  Insane



    Airbus SAS - Love them both
    User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26534 posts, RR: 75
    Reply 20, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 8981 times:

    I know that the B777 outperforms the A340 in terms of seat mile costs, payload, range or other figures.<

    You left off fuel burn and MX cost

    >The A340's advantage is elsewhere, e.g. lower price tag, no ETOPS restrictions, commonality with other Airbus types and so on.<

    What, the A320 and the engines? Also, ETOPS means that the 777 has a lower turnback rate and does not affect routes anymore, since they now have ETOPS 180 and 207 and will have ETOPS 330.
    Also, since it is not on the same type certificate as any other Airbus type, you have to go through full type training if you shift, so commonality does not really exist.


    >HOWEVER, the decision to operate a certain type depends on some hundred different aspects.<

    Can you name those exact hundred aspects?


    > I like all aircraft, no matter if A, B, C, D, E...<

    Riiiight, that is why you sound like a broken record

    >And from a passenger point of view, I would always prefer a B777 over an A340 (-200/300)...because I don't like falling asleep on take off.<

    I really don't know where this quiet thing comes from, there is really not a noticable difference.

    >And in German I like to call the A340 (-200/300) a "Staubsauger" which means "vacuum cleaner".<

    As opposed to "schlechtesflieger" oder "langsamkletterer"?



    Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
    User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12189 posts, RR: 18
    Reply 21, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 8958 times:
    AIRLINERS.NET CREW
    FORUM MODERATOR

    What routes can -LR do with full pax n cargo that 345 can't? Well for starters fly further. Smile


    User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 22, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 8950 times:

    ...might wanna re-read what he wrote cher  Big grin

    User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26534 posts, RR: 75
    Reply 23, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 8945 times:

    >What routes can -LR do with full pax n cargo that 345 can't? Well for starters fly further<

    Try LAX-SIN and EWR-SIN. Why do you think the A345 for SQ only holds 181 people and cannot carry cargo on the eastbounds? Oh, it also burns less fuel



    Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
    User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 24, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 8932 times:

    ...the A345 does carry cargo on the eastbound SoCal, typically around 6-7 tons in fact (so I hear)  Big grin

    25 N1120a : >the A345 does carry cargo on the eastbound SoCal, typically around 6-7 tons in fact (so I hear)
    26 Post contains images Udo : >You left off fuel burn and MX cost That’s why I said “or other figures”. I was giving some examples, not all. And in terms of maintenance some
    27 Post contains images Solnabo : Is ETOPS included in this -LR range (490nm longer than A345 IIRC) Daddy Longleg? Micke//SE
    28 Post contains images Mandala499 : N1120a, Fuel burn and MX cost should be included in the seat mile costs already Udo, HOWEVER, the decision to operate a certain type depends on some h
    29 Post contains images Scbriml : What about after all the airlines crisies are over, fuel returns to descent prices etc? Look up the word niche in the dictionary Why do you think the
    30 RayChuang : I think the reason why SQ only sports 181 seats on their A340-500's is the fact that the planes are fly routes that take over 16 hours flight time. As
    31 Gigneil : Yay for another pointless A vs. B thread, and started by a crew member no less. N
    32 Sebring : Air Canada flies the 345 on routings like YYZ-HKG and YYZ-DEL with full pax and considerable cargo - over 15 tonnes westbound against winter winds. In
    33 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : Because that's how many SQ can get in given their roomy configuration? Or do you expect an airline to try and cram people in at 31" pitch for a 16-18
    34 Rj111 : Maybe not US airlines...
    35 Clickhappy : Yay for another pointless A vs. B thread, and started by a crew member no less. Neil, the 772LR competes with the A345, no more, no less. This is a di
    36 Airbazar : ConcordBoy, have you ever flown on SQ. they might not care about passengers, although you wouldn't really know it, but they sure as hell know how to m
    37 Post contains images Udo : Of course, SIA would never operate 18+ hours flights with regular seat configuration. SIA is not LH or IB...thank god. However, why didn't they instal
    38 Clickhappy : does anyone know the actual cabin space, in footage, between the 772 and the A345? If SQ flys the 772 at the same density as the A345 then I guess we
    39 N79969 : "Neil, the 772LR competes with the A345, no more, no less. This is a discussion of two aircraft. The good news is you don't have to participate if you
    40 Post contains links Widebodyphotog : This topic really has been done to death but I will add a few bits of info to those who have not participated in past discussions. As regarding cabin
    41 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : but they sure as hell know how to make money, and if they're only putting 181 seats when they could easily have more, they must know that will give th
    42 Widebodyphotog : Being able to carry an additional 8-10t of cargo on those flights provides 20-$40,000 of additional revenue per segment. SQ, bringing in a third or mo
    43 Antares : Gentlemen (and any ladies present) I can't find any reason to doubt the 777-200LR will outperform the A345, considering that it has taken Boeing two y
    44 PlaneSmart : The 777-200LR will raise the bar on a niche mkt. Even so, the A340 will continue to ring up a few more sales. Aside from commonality for operators of
    45 AirbusCanada : I know from the numbers 772LR looks pretty impressive. but can anyone car to explain why no airline have order the 777LR, except PIA and EVA air. And
    46 RT514 : ...it seems like a no-brainer that airlines would choose the 772LR over the A345. Once the 772LR is in service, that is. Being able to put out a produ
    47 ConcordeBoy : Airbus will develop a A345 "Advanced" (or something like that) THEN Boeing will respond with a 772LR "Advanced" (or something like that) No need. Airb
    48 RT514 : Airbus's hiked MTOW for the A345 is still handily beaten by the current 772LR's expectant operational specs. Irrelevant to my original point anyway. O
    49 ConcordeBoy : Irrelevant to my original point anyway. That's because your point is too anecdotal as to the dynamics of the C-market to be of any relvance here. Once
    50 Widebodyphotog : Even with the increase in MTOW for A345 payload/range/fuel burn performance is still significantly behind 772LR. The only way that Airbus will bring p
    51 AAplatnumflier : Man I cant wait to fly the 777-200LR in what year is it? Will this be the end of the chapter in who has the bigger or who can fly longer?? Also will t
    52 N328KF : Aaplatnumflier: I bet at some point, the range king will be some 7E7 derivative. Maybe even a one-off. But not for a decade, perhaps.
    53 ConcordeBoy : Man I cant wait to fly the 777-200LR in what year is it? The first model is currently under construction as we speak. It will begin flight testing in
    54 Post contains images Xkorpyoh : I am sure AC would want to grab those SQ A345 to develop more nonstops routes to Asia, the Middle East or India. I don't think it would be hard for SQ
    55 RT514 : There aren't even plans for it-- sort of a Concorde situation if you will. No, not at the moment, C-boy. But, you can't possibly be suggesting that th
    56 N79969 : "except PIA and EVA air. And it's no secret that both of those airlines were forced to buy US products for political reasons. " And it's not true at a
    Top Of Page
    Forum Index

    This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

    Printer friendly format

    Similar topics:More similar topics...
    A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR posted Wed Aug 6 2003 23:18:13 by Osteogenesis
    A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs? posted Sun Aug 31 2003 16:24:41 by Motorhussy
    The Future Of The A340-500 And 777-200LR posted Fri May 18 2001 15:30:51 by Godbless
    A340-500 VS B777-200LR posted Wed Mar 1 2000 11:02:34 by Phileo
    A340-500 Vs A340-300 posted Thu Jun 7 2007 15:50:43 by Aerohottie
    A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences posted Fri Aug 4 2006 10:29:11 by LY777
    Why No A340-500 For VS? posted Wed Mar 8 2006 00:30:20 by AirCanada014
    777-200LR Vs -200ER And 744 posted Mon Oct 17 2005 23:28:45 by DesertRat
    MD-11 Vs A340/330 And 777 posted Wed Sep 28 2005 06:50:00 by Aerohottie
    777-200LR Fuel Burn 20% Lower Than A340-500? posted Sun Sep 25 2005 17:56:13 by Slarty