Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A345 And B772LR  
User currently offlineFlyingHippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 680 posts, RR: 1
Posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 12813 times:

Since in another discussion thread Deafening Silence On A380 Tests (by Boeing767-300 Aug 18 2005 in Civil Aviation), there were a lot of good discussion about A345 and B772LR, which were off the original main topic, I figured I'll start a new thread based on these two fine aircraft models.

Now, I know that everyone has a bias when it comes to air planes, that's why we're all here. But I want a good, civil discussion about these two aircraft types. This is to compare two aircraft types with published data, this is not about Airbus vs. Boeing, and DEFINITELY not about Europe vs. US.

If you do not agree with someone's facts, please provide a good, published, data to back up your claim. If you do not agree with someone's opinion, please respectfully disagree and explain why. (If you'd like to let your opinion know, please start with IMO so we all know, just in case...:p) Opinions are just like (fill in your own body part here), everyone has one.

No name calling, no personal insults. If you can't handle a civil conversation about civil aviation, then I'd suggest you find another thread to look discuss.

Now, here are the facts about the two fine aircrafts:

Boeing 772LR: (Data from http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family)

Launched: Feb 2000 with orders from PIA and EVA
Engine: Two GE-90-110B1L with 110,100 lbs of Thrust
Max range: 9,420 nm with aux. fuel tanks installed.
Max fuel capacity: 53,440 Gal.
MTOW: 766,000 LBs
Cruise Speed: Mach .84
Cargo Space: 5,302 Cubic Ft. (12-14 LD-3 Container pallets, plus 600 cubic ft of bulk cargo, depending on aux. fuel tank option)

Interior Space:
Cabin width: 5.86 m x Cabin length 49.50* m = 290.07 Sq Meters
*(Boeing does not provide the Cabin length, so I used the same logic in subtracting 5 meters from 345's cabin length since 772LR is 5 meters shorter on the outside. If anyone has the figures, please let me know!)



Airbus 340-500: (Data from http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...a340/a340-500/specifications.html)
Engines: Four Rolls Royce Trent 550 with 53,000 lbs thrust each.
Max range with passengers: 8,650 nm
Max fuel capacity: 56,750 Gal
MTOW: 811,300 lbs
Max Operating Mach: Mach .86

Interior space:
Maximum cabin width: 5.28 m x Cabin length 53.56 m. = 282.80 Sq Meters.

I did not include max pax capacity because Boeing and Airbus uses different variables to measure this.

If there are any more published information out there, I will post it up, and if you find any, please do share the info!

Thanks

[Edited 2005-08-22 21:06:28]

264 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlySSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7401 posts, RR: 57
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 12790 times:

Quoting FlyingHippo (Thread starter):
this is not about Airbus vs. Boeing

A345 versus B772LR and this is not about Airbus vs. Boeing ???

Can't wait to see that !


User currently offlineFlyingHippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 680 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 12763 times:

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 1):
A345 versus B772LR and this is not about Airbus vs. Boeing ???

Good point, I should've made myself a bit more clearer:
Comparing two aircrafts that is fighting for the same customers is fine, after all, competition is always good for the customer. Bitching and moaning about who is getting how much money from their government, which country is it produced in, the political condition of the manufacturing country, or making personal attacks because you're a A or B fan, is not acceptable.

This thread is for information gathering and comparison of data. If you have a preference, please express yourself, and your preference should be respected.

Thanks  Smile

[Edited 2005-08-22 21:03:14]

User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17289 posts, RR: 46
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 12722 times:

From what I understand the 77L can consistently carry more payload than the 345.


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineGlareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1303 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 12697 times:

Quoting FlyingHippo (Thread starter):
Now, here are the facts about the two fine aircrafts

OK, these are facts, we are not allowed to give opinions because that is per definition A vs B, or US vs EU as you like...

So, what is your point? End of thread?
 Confused



There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
User currently offlineFlyingHippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 680 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 12666 times:

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 4):
OK, these are facts, we are not allowed to give opinions because that is per definition A vs B, or US vs EU as you like...

Please give all the opinions you want, but please respect other opinions as well, and don't drag politics and national pride into this discussion.


User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 12650 times:

Quoting FlyingHippo (Reply 2):
Good point, I should've made myself a bit more clearer:
Comparing two aircrafts that is fighting for the same customers is fine, after all, competition is always good for the customer. Bitching and moaning about who is getting how much money from their government, which country is it produced in, the political condition of the manufacturing country, or making personal attacks because you're a A or B fan, is not acceptable.

Very well written FlyingHippo, In my opinion the B777-200LR has a leading edge in terms of performance and range compared to the A340-500. Mainly due to it being a twin.
Although in terms of comfort the A340 family wins it for me. I will always prefer the 2-4-2 economy layout of the A340/A330/A350 vs the 2-5-2 of the B777 family.

When it comes to cabin noise the A340 family once again wins hands down. At least I can always get a decent nights sleep aboard the A340 family vs the B777.

I am eager to see how Airbus will react with the improved A340-500/600 HGW vs the 777 family. Last week I read in this forum that Airbus may introduce the A350 rear fuselage to the A340-500/600. With time am sure that this aircraft will be further improved as well as the B777.

Regards,
Wings

[Edited 2005-08-22 21:19:03]


Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4312 posts, RR: 28
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 12648 times:

Interesting stats. The 345 MTOW is over 45,000 lbs more but it carries less payload (according to what others have posted)?


I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
User currently offlineFlySSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7401 posts, RR: 57
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 12651 times:

Pro-Airbus will say :

-A345 is already in service.
-We still wait to verify Boeing's announced performances for the 772LR
-More comfortable seat Cong. 2 X 2 X 2 in Business rather 2 x 3 x 2 in the B777
-Safer "4 engines A long haul"
-Cockpit commonality with the other A340 and A330 models
-Quiter cabin

Pro Boeing will say :
-"4 engines 4 long Haul" doesn't make sense. Engines are safe and reliable enough today so we can trust only 2 engines for long haul
- B772LR is obviously better as all the airlines operating the A345 want to get rid of it to replace it by the A345.
-B772LR has an even longer range than the A345.
- B772LR can fly nonstop SYD-LHR ! Great ! though no airline has the intention to fly nonstop SYD-LHR ...

My opinion :

I like them both !


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Philippe Jeandy
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Philippe Jeandy



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © YK
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Juan Carlos Guerra Aviation Photography of Mexico



User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 12625 times:

Does anyone know if the flight test data for the 772LR has been released? The A345 has been flying for some time and it's operating characteristics are out there. Most of what I've seen argued in these threads WRT the 772LR is based on the projected operating characteristics. If all goes as promised, I think Boeing has a winner, but it'll be hard to match the sheer beauty of the A345. This is one of the most graceful airliners ever produced IMHO.


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineFlyingHippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 680 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 12600 times:

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 7):
Interesting stats. The 345 MTOW is over 45,000 lbs more but it carries less payload (according to what others have posted)?

I have found this interesting as well, but those are the facts from Airbus website.

A bit more info on MTOW and payload on the A345:

MTOW: 811,300 lbs
Maximum zero fuel weight: 496,000 lbs

Question:
Can I use MTWO - Maximum zero fuel weight = Max Payload Weight? (315,300 lbs)


User currently offlineBeauing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 12577 times:

FlyingHippo,
Thank you for posting the cabin areas. That's makes the 772LR
7.27 sq meters larger than the A345. That's significant.
For those not used to thinking in meters that's 23.8 sq feet.

[Edited 2005-08-22 21:27:28]

User currently offlineFlyingHippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 680 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 12545 times:

Quoting Beauing (Reply 11):
Thank you for posting the cabin areas. That's makes the 772LR
7.27 sq meters larger than the A345. That's significant. For those not used to thinking in meters that's 23.8 sq feet.

Well, I don't know if this is accurate, since Boeing did not specify the exact cabin length. I had to estimate based on the difference in outside length between A345 and 772LR


User currently offlineGARPD From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2604 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 12542 times:

This should be interesting. Some realy good info already posted.

I'm not donning my tin hat and flak jacket for the show that's bound to follow.



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineGlareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1303 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 12527 times:

Quoting FlyingHippo (Reply 5):
Please give all the opinions you want, but please respect other opinions as well

Thanks Flying Hippo. In the meanwhile WINGS wrote down my opinion in a decent way. I just want to ad that I've experienced a big difference in noiselevels between the different engine manufacturers in the T7ER.

I think the GE engines on the ER models are significantly louder than others. Is GE the only engine for the LR? If yes I fully support WINGS opinion.



There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
User currently offlineBAflyer From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 12503 times:

Quoting Beauing (Reply 11):
That's makes the 772LR
7.27 sq meters larger than the A345. That's significant.
For those not used to thinking in meters that's 23.8 sq feet.

Not even close... 7.27 sq m = 78.3 sq feet



Most frustrating part of being an atheist - Never being able to say "Told you so".
User currently offlineGeorgiaAME From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 943 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 12499 times:

I have never flown in a LR, however I have a number of flights under my belt on a 777 in economy, business, and first. Last summer, I had the pleasure of flying Singapore's 345 round trip between LA and Singapore.

I am a passenger, and my vast engineering skills include recognizing the number of engines on a wing, and whether or not the forward slats are down. So for me it is a matter of comfort. I will also admit I grew up on Boeing aircraft, and was shocked, shocked, when NorthWest began flying Airbus equipment. (How could they put the good American workers out of work, and all that).

As a passenger, I love Airbus. The 340 series is noticably narrower than a 747 or 777, especially in the rear where I get a bit of a claustrophobic feeling. The 343 is just so quiet, even in the last rows, that I will go out of my way to fly one if the choice is offered. So I was somewhat dissappointed by the much louder environment on the 345. But the creature comfort of the plane is dramatic, partly due to Singapore's layout of 2-3-2 in exec economy. I didn't get the chance to sit up front in business, but their 2-2-2 layout seemed narrow, and again, same noise level.

I don't like flying 777, and go out of my way to avoid them. No matter where you sit, the noise level is dramatically greater than in an airbus. The 3-3-3 layout guarantees maximum discomfort to the vast majority of economy flyers, and when you are shelling out mega bucks for the honor and privelege of free drinks in business, you get mighty ticked off stuck in the middle of the 3 across. I don't care how wide the seats might be or what the pitch is.

As for efficiency and economy, I'll leave that for the gurus to fight over. Seems to me the 777 has it hands down both in the number of people who can be packed in like sardines, and the amount of cargo you fit in the belly. But since I don't have to worry about the technicalities, I go 343 when possible.

Oh yes, much as I dislike Delta, their 2-2-2 Business Elite is about the only selling point they have for their 777. I've flown with them, and again, the aircraft is noisy, but the cabin is very comfortable because of the 2-2-2 they utilize. Unfortunately, they don't seem to want to utilize those aircraft on most of their international flights. Pity, since it sends me to the competition.



"Trust, but verify!" An old Russian proverb, quoted often by a modern American hero
User currently onlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3473 posts, RR: 67
Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 12473 times:

Quoting FlyingHippo (Reply 10):
Can I use MTWO - Maximum zero fuel weight = Max Payload Weight? (315,300 lbs)

No, 315,300 lbs is the max. amount of fuel in lbs that can be loaded when the airplane is at MZFW (Max Zero Fuel Wt).

The max. payload would be MZFW minus OEW (Operating Empty Weight).

Even then it might be impossible to load the max. payload because an airplane can reach a Volume Limited Payload before it reaches the Weight Limited Payload.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineGlareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1303 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 12431 times:

Quoting GeorgiaAME (Reply 16):
The 3-3-3 layout guarantees maximum discomfort

I'm pretty sure United has 2-4-2 in the backcabin.

Quoting GeorgiaAME (Reply 16):
Pity, since it sends me to the competition.

There are more reasons to avoid flying Delta.... Worst airline ever!  Big grin



There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
User currently offlineFlyingHippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 680 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 12409 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 17):
No, 315,300 lbs is the max. amount of fuel in lbs that can be loaded when the airplane is at MZFW (Max Zero Fuel Wt).

The max. payload would be MZFW minus OEW (Operating Empty Weight).

Ah.. thanks for the info.

So MZFW is when a plane is loaded with all pax, cargo and baggage to the max, without the fuel?

Then what does OEW tell us?


User currently onlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3473 posts, RR: 67
Reply 20, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 12366 times:

Quoting FlyingHippo (Reply 19):
Then what does OEW tell us?

It's the airframe weight plus everything required to be onboard to fly a mission.

This includes the flight crew, cabin crew, engine oil, potable water, galley carts and meals etc. The only things you need to add are the payload (passengers, luggage and cargo) and the fuel.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 12367 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 6):
When it comes to cabin noise the A340 family once again wins hands down. At least I can always get a decent nights sleep aboard the A340 family vs the B777.

I flew on an A330 to Vienna recently. I got no sleep whatsoever. Probably due to the fact that I was surrounded by hyperactive teenagers going to Greece for a summer trip.  Smile

In all the years of flying, I've never noticed a difference in noise level. Perhaps it's due to my degraded hearing, but once I put my Sennheiser noise cancellation headphones on, a B777 is the same as an A330 is the same as a B737 is the same as an A320.....


User currently offlineFlyingHippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 680 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 12241 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 21):
In all the years of flying, I've never noticed a difference in noise level.

You must have either kick ass noise cancelling head sets or very bad hearing for not noticing the noise difference...  Smile


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26338 posts, RR: 76
Reply 23, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 12210 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 3):
From what I understand the 77L can consistently carry more payload than the 345.

Yes, it can

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 7):
Interesting stats. The 345 MTOW is over 45,000 lbs more but it carries less payload (according to what others have posted)?

Yes, because its OEW is much higher

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 18):
I'm pretty sure United has 2-4-2 in the backcabin.

United has a 2-5-2 configuration in the back



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2006 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 12187 times:

Would it be fair to say, that Airbus has struggled to get the A340 right, right throughout it's life. The early fiasco with the IAE superfan, the early 200 and 300, the 8000, then the second generation 500 and 600, the HGW improvements, the talk of A350 fuselages etc. The amount of engineering effort that has gone in must be significant (even allowing for the commonality with the A330).

By contrast, the A320 has had stretches and shrinks, but is fundamentally the same aircraft 20 years on, a testimony to it's great design!



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
25 Post contains links SunriseValley : I think Widebodyphotog has summarised the data in the following post. Take a look at what he has to say in Posting #74 and use it as a basis for discu
26 Halls120 : Both, I'm afraid.
27 TP727 : Many brazilians fly to Australia and New Zealand with stops either in Argentina, Chile or South Africa. It´s been said in here that AR is doing GRU-E
28 Glom : For the sake of more accurate comparison, I believe the best cruising mach is 0.825.
29 KL808 : According to Great Circle mapper: LAX-SIN is 7621 nm SIN-EWR is 8285 nm Now: GRU-AKL 6504 nm GRU-SYD 7228 nm GIG-SYD 7312 GIG-AKL 6631 nm IMO GRU/GIG
30 OldAeroGuy : This may no longer be the case when the proposed LROPS rules are released. The current schedule calls for a Dec. '05 publication.
31 GARPD : I was certain new ETOPS rules were quickly diminishing any advantage 4 holers have over twins. I'd say that 114 orders for the 773ER in half the time
32 Post contains links AvFan4ever : Interesting opinion. Even BA rates their 777-200 and 777-200IGWs (GE engines) as quieter that their 777-200ERs (RR engines). Note QC departure and ar
33 Post contains images Keesje : The square meters comparison on the 772lr and a340-500 is misleading. Most of the cabin on e.g. SQ is business class (60%/). Both the 772 and A345 hav
34 RedChili : The question was regarding the A340 being more silent than the B777, not the A330. I believe that the A340 is more silent than the A330. For most air
35 GARPD : thats as maybe, but if they were to carry more containers, they would need to rip out more seats. I'm certain SQ have commented that the seating arra
36 WINGS : That's correct Keesje, the B777 family has more cargo space although many is dead space which has no use. If Airbus is to go forward with the introdu
37 ZSOFN : Guys I'm impressed! This is a proper civilised discussion! There's some really interesting reading here too. Having flown on neither aircraft (althoug
38 Shenzhen : I think 6 across on a 777 would be called "First Class", same as if 6 across were installed on main deck of a 747/A380. But hey, anyone can call a ca
39 GARPD : Not trying to be hostile or such, but what is the source for this info?
40 Post contains images Glareskin : Oops! But at least it isn't 3-3-3....
41 Post contains links Glareskin : It is a very clear difference. Actually I have started a thread about it when I found out http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/rea
42 RedChili : It depends on the airline. BA has a 1-2-1 seating in first on the 777.
43 Maersk737 : The source is, most airlines are using standard cargo containers. Cheers Peter
44 GARPD : That still does not confirm the dead space comment.
45 Maersk737 : If the operator of the 777, is using standard cargo containers. There will be some unused space in the cargo hold. You can call that unused space, de
46 WINGS : Thaks for that Maersk737, You summed it up pretty well. Regards, Wings
47 TEAtheB : Why is this? Have you compared the weight of 4 Trent 500's with 2 GE90's? Correct, it's not a fair comparison, so why write it?
48 GARPD : I'm, still waiting for a verifiably source. All we have is your say so. A breakdown on space available and space used with the cargo containers on an
49 Post contains images Maersk737 : You can trust me Cheers Peter
50 Shenzhen : I guess it boils down to what is considred an "industry standard" First class seat. I could presume that BA are offering more then just a seat, but p
51 GARPD : And I beleive you, but for the benefit of others, an external source would be great.
52 Shenzhen : Then what about the 747 or A380? The 747 has been wasting space for 30 years... hmmmmmm
53 Maersk737 : I did not say that, it's just that you can call the extra width of the 777 for dead space, if we are talking about the cargo hold, and the standard c
54 RedDragon : Sounds like it's going to be a comfy 8-abreast or a slightly tighter 9-abreast. However, given that the interior is apparently wider than even the A3
55 Shenzhen : Sorry, my mistake, as I thought the 747 was wider then the 777, and since it was the first widebody out.. then it would use the standard or the stand
56 Avalon : With regard to ETOPS, there are a few routes from Australia where I believe it will always be prudent to use four engines even if there are no applica
57 Shenzhen : Lets say Australia aside, as it and New Zealand don't really equate to much vs the rest of the world, population wise. Everyone quotes these lonely ro
58 KL808 : Thats true, but you have to recognize that a sale is a sale no matter where. So this topic talks about the B777LR and A345, and this part of the regi
59 Avalon : No. Let us not agree to such a - what can I say? - 'distortion'...
60 NAV20 : On economy seating layout, the 787 is normally being offered in 8-across but 9-across is feasible if required (people may recall that Indian airline t
61 RedFlyer : I agree: the noise levels between aircraft types are hard to discern. Unless you sit in the same location (same distance from engines) on both aircra
62 FlyingHippo : Not necessarily true. You can fit 2-3-2 easily in a business class of 777 due to it's wider cabin. SQ put 2-2-2 in their 772s as Raffles class, which
63 RedFlyer : Good post, Avalon - great articulation - and your analysis appears persuasive. However, I would like to advance the analysis that just because a twin
64 Avalon : And QF as one of the most profitable airlines ( & second oldest in the world) is not an insignificant customer for any airline manufacturer. Even if
65 Avalon : Thanks RedFlyer for your compliment. I did not say & I hope I did not imply that the loss of one engine increases the risk of losing the other, becau
66 Post contains links and images Keesje : I'm just not sure SQ would downgrade it's new B772ER 2-2-2 "Raffles" Business class to 2-3-2 for the B777LR. Unlikely IMO. View Large View MediumPhot
67 FlyingHippo : 772LR would give SQ the option of putting in a 2-2-2 or 1-2-1 First Class, and a 2-3-2 business class, which probably would result more revenue for S
68 Shenzhen : My assertion was that the market between Australia and the other two southerly continents are limited; therefore the basis of the discussion should no
69 Post contains images FlyingHippo : Just want to add: This thread is about A345 and 772LR, the featured long haul product for both A & B. All of the posts in this thread have been very c
70 Post contains images Keesje : Lets not change the rules if the outcomes don't fit in SQ choose for 2-2-2 on 777 and a340 and they have selected a luxury 2 class ULH product mix be
71 NAV20 : As far as I know ETOPS requires that a twin should never be more than five hours from an alternate. Between Oz and California, American Samoa (forget
72 RedFlyer : Not at all, but I think there is a mental perception out there that the loss of one seems to imply that the aircraft is suddenly at great risk. Very
73 Shenzhen : Are they the same seats? I flew Business on a Thai 777, and it was 2-4-2.
74 B2707SST : ...given the A340-500's weight constraints. SQ's First Class seat was reportedly too heavy to be included given the payload restrictions needed to fl
75 Glom : Well some people have made their feelings quite clear regarding preference for the A340 due to noise levels and 2-4-2 configuration. Anyone prefer the
76 FlyingHippo : Agree with you 100%, I do prefer the quietness of A343 (can't vouch for A345 though) However, the economics of a 777 (better fuel effiency, more carg
77 RedChili : This is something I never thought of before. As a passenger, I would not be afraid of flying the 777 on a long ETOPS flight. But as an armchair airli
78 KL808 : Indeed. This segment of the market is SO limited that both manufacturers cannot exclude this area. With only a handful orders for both airframes, no
79 Kaitak744 : So, to sum up this discussion, the 777-200LR has a noise problem and the ETOPS factor. But besides that, it is more fuel efficient and can fly further
80 Tockeyhockey : the one statistic that stands out for me is the the 777 goes farther than the 345 while carrying less fuel. that is what the airlines will truly care
81 RedFlyer : Valid point but not necessarily always true. There are several instances of four holers being brought down by bird ingestion - the USAF 707 AWACS cra
82 Keesje : Economy class is heavier then first class (passenger density) Airlines like BA, UA, JL and others have a 1-2-1 first class. A340 operators have the s
83 Glareskin : I think this was a KLM 747 with a female Captain who boldly put the jumbo in a steep dive (as learned during the study) to clean the engines. A very
84 RedFlyer : The one I referred to was definitely a BA flight. But I've heard of others happening as well. Did the KLM flight you refer to happen over Mt. Pinatub
85 TP727 : It was a BA 747. They lost all four engines, lost altitude (may be wrong but i think it went down to 8000ft), and got the engine back to work in time
86 Spink : Looking at the seat maps, it appears you are incorrect. Of the carriers that have equivalent first class seats to say BA, SQ, or VA they only offer 1
87 Avek00 : Avalon, the flaw in your argument is that a quad is FAR MORE LIKELY to lose an engine than a twin in the first place - since a midflight engine loss
88 Post contains links Ha763 : There is a cargo container that fits the 747 that leaves no empty space, the LD-1. It is a half-width conatiner and including the contour, it is 92 i
89 Post contains links Keesje : First class on A340 is usually 1-2-1 CX: http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Cat...ay_Pacific_Airways_Airbus_A346.php Swiss: http://www.airliners.net/op
90 Post contains links B2707SST : True, but premium classes are also much more profitable. Given the A345's weight constraints, SQ judged that a large Raffles cabin would generate lar
91 Glareskin : No I don't think so. If I recall correctly it was either over Greenland or Alaska. No other Dutch a-netter who remember this news item? It must be be
92 Shenzhen : Not Dutch, but it was over Alaska. Not only did it shut the engines down, but sand blasted the windows and ruined most every component on the airplan
93 Shenzhen : There is no real reason to debate seating on different airlines or different airplanes. No one really believes that SQ use the same seat on 2.2.2 in t
94 RedChili : Exactly which carriers are you talking about? Yes, there is room to have a 2-3-2 seating on those planes. But the fact still is that SQ chose to have
95 Shenzhen : I don't believe there has ever been a twin engine airplane that crashed due to engine malfunction in the ETOPS portion of a flight. In fact, engines
96 RedChili : I totally agree with you that there is probably a 0.0001 percent chance that this will ever happen. But when it comes to man-made machines, nobody ca
97 Post contains links Keesje : The article you quote says SQ found out "first-class bookings to the US had been declining." We see airlines removing First & upgrading Business clas
98 Shenzhen : .00001 X 10 to the negative ........
99 Maersk737 : Please, a bigger cross section an still 2 LD-3 containers. When we are talking about cargo in LD-3 and other standard containers, you can call the ex
100 GARPD : A very interesting thread. Here's my summary of what I have observed. From what I have seen presented, it is clear the 772LR is capable of outperformi
101 Glareskin : If you want to use opinions of the majority of a-netters as a conclusion you at least forgot the lower noise level in the cabinof the A345.
102 Post contains images Keesje : Seems you only picked out the opinions that confirm what you think
103 GARPD : I was focusing on operational terms. Not passenger opinions on noise, but on the facts and figures that interest an Airline when buying an aircraft.
104 GARPD : And what the majority on this thread are to be able to prove.
105 Glareskin : I cannot predict all the considerations Airline management have when choosing an aircraft but I'm sure that it is not 100% on operational costs. Furt
106 GARPD : Even adding that, the 772LR clearly still has the advantage. And neither you or I know what the noise levels will be like on the 772LR. So it would b
107 LorM : No one mentioned that the 777 aircraft have the advantage of not needing to take out LD containers to fit in crew rests and lower deck lavatory space
108 Post contains images Glareskin : That points yours! But considering it will be GE that is powering the LR I doubt that it will be an improvement as I expect it would be hard to impro
109 Post contains images Maersk737 : But it is not ignorant to claim superiority on all other matters, but sound just now? Cheers Peter
110 GARPD : But I didn't say it WAS. I said: is capable
111 Jeffrito : The "dead space" is transferred to the passenger cabin by lowering the floor. The cross-sections are clear, and anyone sitting in the window seat of
112 Keesje : I expect Airbus to come with an A380 LR version that will dwarf the 777LR. Maybe they are already proposing it to Qantas, BA and others. Technically p
113 GARPD : Just what has that got to do with this thread, other than an attempt by you to keep up Airbus's supposed superiority
114 Shenzhen : I doubt Airbus are pushing any new derivatives of the A380 at this point in time, as wouldn't this be adding salt to the delays/wound. In addition to
115 Avek00 : If the 772LR encounters something bad enough to cause a double engine-out, it is a virtual certainty that the 345 would face the loss of all of its e
116 Post contains links and images Keesje : How interesting, do you have as source? So Airbus is paralized by it's huge problems? Not what I sense.. What I heard is that is a different RFP.. Wi
117 RedFlyer : Amusing how the 345 engine shut-down results in a safe diversion but the 777LR engine shut-down results in a crash. Keesje, I usually enjoy your spir
118 Keesje : As you can read he is a lot more objective / down to earth about the A345/772LR situation (last two paragraphs) then anything I've heard from the oth
119 RedFlyer : He is? How so? Is there an example of where the "other side" has not been as "down to earth"? The two sides obviously don't exactly agree on the mark
120 Post contains links Keesje : Not saying A345 is better then B772LR, but saying it is not a big market for both.. Not only are the longer-range, increased-weight versions of the A
121 OldAeroGuy : No, the statement of 301 pax at 9420 nautical miles is correct. What evidence do you have that it is not?
122 Maersk737 : Are you sure? Cheers Peter
123 RedFlyer : I would expect exactly those words from a PR man whose product for a particular market has not been selling well lately. However, to your point (and
124 Post contains images NAV20 : Thaknks for that item, Keesje (except maybe for the length ). I enjoyed reading the Airbus guy's stuff, because it was articulate and pretty comprehen
125 Worldliner : qoute: flyinghippo a340-500 Engines: Four Rolls Royce Trent 550 with 53,000 lbs thrust each. 777-200lr Engine: Two GE-90-110B1L with 110,100 lbs of Th
126 Widebodyphotog : While I tried to avoid this thread I was disturbed by some of the opinions some have regarding ETOPS. As far as operators are concerned safety regardi
127 Post contains images Glareskin : Makes it noisier! Welcome to a.net. Your name is making an impression!
128 GARPD : Well said widebodyphotog, well said indeed! Welcome to my RU list, not that it makes any difference to you.
129 Widebodyphotog : In point of fact the 777-200LR normal cruise speed is M.84 (as are all 777's) while the A340-500 normal cruise is M.825. However, this is not due to
130 Glom : Not necessarily. When I was on a GE90 powered BA 777, I didn't find it that noisy. I can't remember what it was like on a VS A340, but I don't doubt
131 Mikkel777 : No. Ever heard about CO, DL.....? So wider isles, wider and more airy cabin, possibility of a wider seat and seats mounted further away from the fuse
132 FlyingHippo : Thank you Widobodyphotog, you were able to put what I wanted to say (Plus so much more!) in a well written reply. Regarding engine noise, I have read
133 B2707SST : Loads to the US may be declining, but this has not prompted SQ to remove First on its other routes. On every other type SQ flies, the weight and high
134 Widebodyphotog : That is for the 380t A345 which does not exist yet, and it may never be built. The design range of the generic 365t A345 is 8,650nm, with a 313 passe
135 WINGS : I believe that both the A340-500/600 will receive the HGW. The introduction into service is expected late next year or early 2007. Regards, wINGS
136 GARPD : IIRC, EK are the only ones with the A346HGW on order. And I read somewhere that with the advent of the 773ER proving very able, they appatently may n
137 OldAeroGuy : Widebodyphotog, I really respect your opinions and posts, but this statement is not correct. Both Airbus and Boeing do account for these items in the
138 Post contains links Glareskin : The following is posted mailed to me by the infamous Beauing as a reaction to this. As you can read he wasn't able to post it because his subscriptio
139 WINGS : Actually that's not correct. Qatar will be the Launch customer for the A340-600HGW, followed by Emirates. As I understand Airbus will only be offerin
140 Post contains links and images Keesje : An increasing number of SQ long haul service has a two class cabin. Check out seatguru.com. Comfort is not the reason for the 2-2-2 cabin. It can fit
141 OldAeroGuy : The incident you're referring to occurred during a Boeing pre-delivery flight test. There have been no GE90-115B IFSD/early removals during airline s
142 Mikkel777 : First you say that passengers would avoid a config that is not comfortable, then you say passengers would not pay extra for a nicer cabin. Avoid loss
143 Post contains images GARPD : I stand corrected. Thanks.
144 RedChili : I think you misunderstood. The case was that with an engine shutdown on an A345, you still have three working engines. That should definitely be enou
145 Post contains images GARPD : Not that Keesje would let a little detail like that foil his attempts ate rubbishing the 777 [Edited 2005-08-24 22:35:50]
146 GARPD : Yeah, its only the first true long haul twin aicraft with the largest engines in the industry and soon the longest range, delivering advantageous fue
147 Post contains links and images Keesje : The B727 and Coronado were significant faster, although I wouldn´t classify them as having incorporated higher technology. The cruise speeds of airc
148 OldAeroGuy : No, both these airplanes operated initially in a world where kerosene cost $.10USD per gallon. Consequently, they were cruised near Mmo, referred to
149 Widebodyphotog : Thanks for the clarification, and I should have qualified my statement in terms of degree that operational items are accounted for. But there is a ve
150 RedChili : Yes, it's very optimistic for him to say that Airbus will not be able to sell any more A345's while Airbus is spending money on developing an IGW ver
151 RedChili : I'm not an ETOPS basher. I really agree with you concerning most things you write about this, and I think that the 777 is a technological marvel. But
152 Glom : The A345 hasn't been selling well lately, but the 772LR has increased its sales by a fair margin over the past few months with the promise of more to
153 Widebodyphotog : The point is not that risk has been eliminated or that there is no possibility of failure. It is that ETOPS actively and passively reduces the chance
154 RedFlyer : Agreed. And not to split hairs, but Airbus does believe traffic growth will increase more on hubs, hence, it's focus on the 380 whereas Boeing believ
155 NWA742 : The hell it isn't. -NWA742
156 Mikkel777 : It is? I'd say for a 17 hour flight, making the cabin as nice as possible for the passengers is very important. To make such long flight a better opt
157 Dynkrisolo : That's incorrect. For the 777, the M.84 number is the typical constant Mach cruise speed. LRC Mach is not a constant number. It varies with aircraft
158 FlyingHippo : What SQ put in their F/C class is based on their business model. They want to replace their F class with C class product, therefor increasing the com
159 Widebodyphotog : Well, I do have the data... Operationally for the 777 LRC speed at FL300-FL350 is M.843 or 483KTAS. Weight determines the cruise altitude and not cru
160 RedChili : I'm no expert in these matters, but I don't believe that Airbus only adds two extra engines and believes that this will do the job. I'm quite sure th
161 Shenzhen : How much extra length... are we talking meters or feet. Thanks,
162 RedChili : I don't have time to find out now, I have two jobs to do today! But you can find out from Boeing and Airbus. I believe we're talking about between 2-
163 Sebolino : 4,2 m (67,9 - 63,7)
164 Post contains images Johnny : hi, this is my first post to airliners.net,and just to give you all an impression of my airbus/boeing-preference: i do not like them all,but i like sp
165 Glom : Airbus has a habit of giving the Mmo rather than the typical cruise mach, which is what makes the number look higher.
166 RedChili : This is the external length of the planes. What about the cabin length?
167 Shenzhen : I guess the 777-300ER and A340-600 are a bit closer... 73.9 vs 75.3 or a difference of 1.4 meters (external). So I guess the 777 makes up for the diff
168 RedChili : Sigh! It feels like I'm arguing in a circle! Okay, once more, this depends on what interior the airline will choose. Concering SQ, they have 6 abreas
169 Post contains images Keesje : We are ULH here & 772 vs A350. Both 1-2-1 2-2-2 4.2m = 165 inch, so about 4-5 rows of premium economy, or two rows first class. As said too often now
170 GARPD : As already mentioned by someone. What's good for one airline is not necessarily good for another.[Edited 2005-08-25 12:01:01]
171 RedChili : Personally, I believe that the advantages for SQ if they would order the B772LR would be first and foremost the lower fuel burn, the possibility of ca
172 GARPD : I think we are focusing too much on cabin width and length. What about the cabin classes? I think that if they order it, an SQ 772LR will likely featu
173 RedChili : Perhaps. But then again, on those 772ERs that SQ are flying to Europe today, they do not have any F-seats. The trend in the airline industry, includi
174 GARPD : But the ULH market is slightly different. Anyone using the C cabin on these flights are fair game for an F cabin. And I believe SQ have already menti
175 OldAeroGuy : Agreed. Thanks, you saved me a longer post.
176 Amy : Looking at it from a rther uncommon persepctive: The A345 for me is a classier jet. It relies on the older and (arguably) less cost-effective 4 engine
177 Dynkrisolo : That is incorrect. If an airplane always cruises at its optimal cruise altitude, or in another word, it constantly climbs, then you can argue LRC is
178 WINGS : If only looks could count than for sure the A340-500 would win over the B777-200LR, at least in my eyes. But the fact is that beauty is not only meas
179 OldAeroGuy : But the variation for typical cruise conditions is on the order of +/-.003M. That's why Boeing quotes the 777 cruise speed of 0.84M as the LRC speed.
180 USAF336TFS : For my eyes, just the opposite, although your conculsions were on the mark!
181 Dynkrisolo : Wrong again. For example, why don't you check the LRC of a 773er at 400,000lb, ISA+10 deg C at 41,000ft altitude? I can assure you it's noticeably le
182 Post contains links Widebodyphotog : I'm very tired of arguing aircraft specifications... Boeing 777-200LR/300ER and Airbus 340-500/600 Data Table Data for 777-200LR is for an aircraft w
183 Widebodyphotog : At 400,000lb there would be 30,000lbs of fuel on board and no payload. In a real world flight plan for a 6,000nm mission the aircraft would be landin
184 Dynkrisolo : I'm certainly not arguing against this. The 777 is a faster aircraft. Period. In previous replies, I was simply stating that LRC Mach is a function o
185 Dynkrisolo : Okay, I admit that was a poor example. But how about a 777 that can't land at its destination airport and has to fly to an alternate airport. Say, th
186 N60659 : Disclaimer - I am definitely not in the same league as you guys (Dynkrisolo, Widebodyphotog and OldAeroGuy) so feel free to correct me if I am wrong
187 OldAeroGuy : Again, another unrealistic example for the topic under discussion i.e. typical cruise Mach number and its approximation of LRC. Diversions would be f
188 Post contains images Lehpron : I mean all of this with respect: It is advised that you not get official published stats from the company that made the product despite how obvious it
189 Widebodyphotog : I have no idea who's tables you are looking at, but the situation you are talking about is not what happens in actual service. The assumptions you ar
190 777adoration : Everyone has bias that's true. My father works for "the big B" so with that said. You can tell my favourite civil plane from my screen name,of course.
191 OldAeroGuy : You are correct. Landing weight at the primary would not have been scheduled to be higher than MLW. Reserve fuel for flying to the alternate would ha
192 Dalecary : Then why doesn't SQ operate their 345 services with a premium First cabin??? I believe the cabin width issues don't allow efficient F-seating and the
193 Dynkrisolo : Widebodyphotog, OldAeroGuy: I won't dwell on the examples, they weren't good ones. I was in a rush. But the examples showed that LRC is not a constant
194 Shenzhen : Funny how the 787 is wider then the airplane that it replaces... the 767. Cheers
195 Widebodyphotog : I understand what you are saying. It is theory and would be optimal for flight planning if time were not a factor. Over long distances if an aircraft
196 RedChili : Thank you for the link, it's a good table. However, there are a few numbers there that I believe are wrong. E.g. the economy seat pitch for three-cla
197 Shenzhen : Not only is it wider then the 767 but the A300/A310/A330 also. Lets make comparisions to the market in which it operates... It is also narrower then
198 RedChili : SQ has seven abreast Y+ seating there. Do you suggest that they would have nine-abreast if they would order the 772LR? In that case, it would be a no
199 Shenzhen : Some data.... 777-200LR floor area 218.8 sq. meters A340-500 floor area 208.9 Standard Seat bottoms = SB 777 7 abreast.. SB 50.8 aisle width 54.6 armr
200 Glom : I think you've hit on a good point. Airbus love to advertise that passenger comfort is greater because the A320 is wider than the 737, but when it co
201 Post contains links and images Shenzhen :
202 WINGS : I believe that wider cabin for a wide body does matter. Airbus selling point for the A340/A350 in relation to the B777 will still be the cabin layout
203 RedChili : There's one big difference here: The A320 and B737 have both six-abreast, so it's exactly the same seating arrangement for both of them, but the A320
204 Shenzhen : Like having more revenue generating power is a bad thing. How many passengers do you need to climb over on an A320? Maybe all the airlines should fit
205 Post contains images Johnny : Hello again, i think all facts are discussed so many times now,instead of..: 1.The B787-fuselage is not much wider than the Airbusses,because you have
206 Jeffrito : What I am reading in this thread leads me to believe that a 777LR (vs A345) or 777300-ER (vs 346) does not rely on higher passenger revenues to reali
207 WINGS : I don't see many major airlines opting for a cattle class to generate revenue. Some do, Although only in business class. Can you seriously say that i
208 Post contains images Keesje : Boeing 772LR : Pakistan International Airlines, Air India, EVA Air, (Air Canada) Airbus A340-500 : Emirates, Singapore Airlines, Thai, Air Canada Are
209 GARPD : While this may be the way Airbus PR swing it. At the end of they day they are not ultimately in charge of how many seats are fitted into each row. Th
210 OldAeroGuy : About the same way I'd feel in the window seat of a 777 or an A340. On a long range flight there is very little to see and you still have the inconve
211 WINGS : Maybe you could enlighten us, as to how many airlines have chosen a different layout for the Airbus A330/A340 in economy class (ex LCC). You will fin
212 Post contains links Jano : Both http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF7/764.html There are cases on record where the ash fallout has completely shut down engines. An extreme
213 GARPD : Well its a smaller aircraft and the width would most likely mean more drag etc if they kept it the same width as the 777. There is no real hidden rea
214 OldAeroGuy : Could it be that the 777 cross section is too large for an airplane with the seating capacity of a 787-3/8? Drag is still an important consideration
215 FlyingHippo : This is a great discussion, and everyone's comments are very courtious and civil. See!! We can have our differences without a pissing match!! Unfortun
216 Shenzhen : I would only be given a middle seat if no other seats were available. I would much rather sit in the middle seat in business class.. then be next to
217 BoeingBus : Trying to convince WINGS anything is going around in circles. I just find it interesting that he tries to convince us that he is not biased, in any w
218 WINGS : Well maybe you should explain that to Airbus. They opted for the same fuselage width since the early A300 to the super stretch A340-600. While at the
219 Keesje : Maybe comfort at 18 hr flights / passenger revenue mix has also something to do with this. This SQ/777LR thing has been going on since 1997. Lets see
220 Shenzhen : Exactly, they took a fuselage from an airplane that was designed for short haul and tried to make it into a long haul airplane. Problem is, the A320
221 GARPD : A weak argument. And does not cover the A342/A343/A346. RE: A345, The evidence is there to suggest SQ wouldn't mind fitting more seats, particularly
222 Post contains links WINGS : How did you come to this conclusion? From the Airbus website both seat pitch for the A320 family and A330/340 family in economy class is 32 inches. h
223 OldAeroGuy : Pitch is the cabin length dedicated to a seat. Seat width is self explanatory.
224 Post contains images GARPD :
225 Glom : That link says the A346 has comparable passenger capacity and twice the 747's cargo capacity. Is that true?
226 GARPD : At MTOW I think so, in a cramped cabin according to a VS340 pilot I know, but whether you'd get any appreciable range out of it is another matter.
227 Glom : It says in the a/c data entry for the 777-200 that the LR has been delayed until 2006. What part of it has been delayed? EIS?
228 Glom : Okay, looking at widebodyphotog's table, I see some interesting things. When the 772LR has max fuel plus payload, it range goes down on typical loadin
229 Post contains images Glareskin : I guess that's what's making you an OldAeroGuy: experience based practicality...
230 Gearup : As far as I know the 747 is wider than the 777 as far as the main deck is concerned. The 777 has a more circular cross-section so the flloor line is
231 RedChili : It is certainly not a bad thing. By stating this, it makes me wonder that maybe you have not understood what some people here are trying to say. To m
232 Shenzhen : You are only wishing I was talking about business class. I stated there will be seats on the A380 that are more then "1" seat away from the aisle.. p
233 RedChili : If your intention was to talk about economy, then I apologize for inserting the word "business" between the lines in your post. In economy, though, i
234 Shenzhen : 7+2 = 10???????
235 RedChili : Well, you wrote economy and an A340 has 8 abreast in economy, hence 8+2 = 10. I realize now that you meant Y+, economy plus. But if that's what you m
236 Shenzhen : Umm... no... 10 across in a 777 equals 8 across in regular economy on an A340. I think you need to get some basic facts straight before we continue...
237 RedChili : I'm so sorry, but virtually all airlines use 9 abreast in regular economy on the 777 (except OS, EK and some TG planes). BA has 8 abreast in their 77
238 Shenzhen : You can call a cabin what ever you want to call it, but numbers don't lie. Simply compare the standard seat bottom sizes... these are facts. The TG fl
239 RedChili : I'm almost considering nominating you for the Basil Fawlty award! If your "basic facts straight" is based upon the TG 8 abreast in business, you're i
240 Shenzhen : You are the one that mentioned TG as though their 8 abreast was economy, therefore I elaborated. My only examples are seat bottom widths.. and I eager
241 RedChili : I was talking about the TG A340, not the 777! Quote from myself: "all airlines I know (except a few charter carriers) use 8 abreast in economy on the
242 Shenzhen : Here, I quoted your text for you.
243 RedChili : You misunderstood what I said. I said that OS, EK and some TG planes have 10 abreast on the 777! I think most people would understand that. Most peop
244 Post contains links and images Shenzhen : No.. what I have been saying is that 9 across is basically 7 across in an A340, since we were talking long haul. Regarding the dreaded middle seat, ai
245 RedChili : Well, this is your personal opinion, and you are entitled to that opinion. But don't try to say that this is a fact! I don't think you will find many
246 Shenzhen : I just noticed paging down to the bottom of this thread, that you are the same guy that said if an A340 loses an engine it diverts, if the 777 loses a
247 PyroGX41487 : I think alot of people, myself included, are sick and tired of the whole 777LR vs. A345 debate, mostly brought up by SQ's past history with ditching A
248 FlyingHippo : So if I use TG as an example,if TG has a 772LR, they can fit 2-3-2 in C, 2-4-2 in Y+, and 2-5-2/3-3-3 in Y in a 772LR and fly the same mission, no? I
249 Widebodyphotog : First I am shocked and amazed this thread has carried on this long. And secondly to answer your question Glom, When at design passenger payload only
250 Post contains images FlyingHippo : I am too... But, some people just don't want to see the numbers...
251 PyroGX41487 : I'm honestly not. This has been talked to death and I don't think anyone is ever going to stop taking it personally. =/
252 Mikkel777 : Here is the facts you need: UA777 Economy plus: 34-36" pitch, 18" wide seats in 9 abreast SK333 Economy Extra, 37" pitch, 18,3" wide seats in 7 abrea
253 Post contains images Iwok : I just mentioned this on another thread. I think the main reason for keeping the same diameter had to do with the Beluga and assembly line already se
254 RedChili : My dear Shenzhen! Sometimes it sounds like you're actually trying to misunderstand what I'm saying. I never said that a 777 will crash if it loses an
255 NAV20 : I think that's exactly the size of it, FlyingHippo. The vast majority of passengers just tell the travel agent that they want to go from A to B at a
256 RedChili : On the face of it, I agree that it appears like a no contest. But still, several airlines have actually chosen the A345. So if you complain that peop
257 OldAeroGuy : Let's count the airlines that have chosen between the A345 and the 772LR since the later became available. A345 Thai 772LR EVA Pakistan Jet Airways A
258 FlyingHippo : No, I never said that. I was simply using TG as an example due to their configuration on their A345. I am not in the airline industry, I do no work f
259 RedChili : I don't have exact info in front of me, but the 772LR was launched back in March 2000. Are you sure that TG is the only airline that has ordered the
260 OldAeroGuy : Yes, I am. This is the only new customer for the A345 since the 772LR was launched. EVA was a 772LR customer at program launch, PIA was not. Their or
261 RedChili : Yes, only time will tell which one is really the carriers' favourite. I would even say that a year from now is very early. Five years from now, thoug
262 Post contains links Keesje : Long range versions of the 772 have been proposed since the mid nineties. SQ/AA just didn' go for it. The 772LR being so new comapred to the a340-500
263 OldAeroGuy : There is a big difference between a design proposal and an offerable airplane. No urban legend here. Until an engine selection was made between Rolls
264 RedChili : Very good link, Keesje. Thanks!
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...
A345 And 772LR Fuel Burn. posted Tue Sep 19 2006 15:00:23 by Angelairways
Thai A345 And A346 posted Mon Feb 6 2006 14:20:30 by Lordanmol
Why The Difference Between EK's A345 And B773ERs posted Wed Feb 1 2006 00:01:00 by FlyingHippo
SQ A345 And Crew Rest posted Wed May 18 2005 01:17:20 by Sq_ek_freak
Will Thai Get The A345 And Do LAX-BKK Nonstop? posted Wed Apr 21 2004 23:47:55 by Targowski
Thai Airways' A345 And A346 posted Thu Nov 6 2003 08:50:19 by Nethkt
Air Canada Airbus A345 And A346 Routes posted Wed Oct 15 2003 05:57:45 by ACB777
Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR posted Wed Oct 18 2006 17:36:21 by Dangould2000
Emirates Boss Clark Talks About 772LR And A345 posted Fri Dec 30 2005 13:54:05 by NA
A345/A346 - Operators And Routes? posted Tue Oct 4 2005 05:36:27 by Cxsjr