Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A330 Vs A340 - Differences / Preference  
User currently offlineLevent From France, joined Sep 2004, 1718 posts, RR: 5
Posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6149 times:

Hello all,

I flew on an Emirates Airbus A330 from DXB to IST, then IST to DXB and next Saturday again from DXB to BKK. I think it's a great airplane.
I was wondering - why would an airline prefer the A340 above the A330? What are the differences? (alright, alright, one has four and the other two engines... duh)
I suppose the A330 is cheaper to operate - re: THY's choice to get A330's instead of A340's?
Has the choice to do with ETOPS regulations?

All input appreciated.

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6128 times:

Quoting Levent (Thread starter):
why would an airline prefer the A340 above the A330

Well, it depends on wich a330 or a340 you are talking about. The a332 is similar in size as the a342, but smaller than the a343, which is the same size as the a333. However the a333 has about 10.000 km range and the a343 about 14.000 km. (or was it 13.000?)
And then there's the a345 with a much bigger range and a bit bigger than the a343, and the a346 with a range of 14.000 km which is also the biggest a340. (about 773 size). If you don't need the range of the a343 the a333 is cheaper to operate, which is why NW took the a333. It is also cheaper to operate than the 772A, according to NW because it is a much lighter aircraft.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineAirCanada014 From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 1513 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6067 times:

However don't forget several airlines like AC and LH orderd both /ac
330-300 and 340-300. 330-300 is good for high density medium and long range a/c while 340-300 is good for long range a/c. For example, AC uses 340-300 to ASIA and Brazil and Europe while 330-300 uses for mainly Europe.


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2821 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5914 times:

The A340-300 is essentially the A330-300ER. It has all the hallmarks: same fuselage but strengthened. Same landing gear but enhanced (in this case with an extra bogey), extra tankage and uprated power plant (in this case by giving an extra pair).

User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2755 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5767 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 3):
The A340-300 is essentially the A330-300ER. It has all the hallmarks: same fuselage but strengthened. Same landing gear but enhanced (in this case with an extra bogey), extra tankage and uprated power plant (in this case by giving an extra pair).

I wonder if Airbus at some times thinks about puting bigger engines ala GE90-115 on a A340-500/A340-600 design, but with only 2 engines and named it A330--500/A330-600?



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineRichard28 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 1628 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5721 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 4):
I wonder if Airbus at some times thinks about puting bigger engines ala GE90-115 on a A340-500/A340-600 design, but with only 2 engines and named it A330--500/A330-600?

Erm, is this not essentially what the A350 will be?


User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2185 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5697 times:

Quoting Levent (Thread starter):
Has the choice to do with ETOPS regulations?

The choice has also to do with range. Any 340 has a longer range than its 330 equivalent.

In which regards ETOPS, the only problematic route I have in mind is the Southern Pacific (SCL/EZE-AKL), operated by LA and AR on 343s and 342s respectively. I don't think a 333X would have the range anyway to operate SCL-AKL, and I'd say the same about a 332 and EZE-AKL. Both are longer I think than the current longest route operated by each type.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 4):
I wonder if Airbus at some times thinks about puting bigger engines ala GE90-115 on a A340-500/A340-600 design, but with only 2 engines and named it A330--500/A330-600?

Yes indeed as pointed out by Richard28, the thing will be called an A350.



When I doubt... go running!
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2755 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5658 times:

Quoting Richard28 (Reply 5):
Erm, is this not essentially what the A350 will be?

Yoy and YULWinter Skies are both right. The A330-500 was proposed to airlines. 8 frames shorter than the A330-200 and 7000Nm range. At one time before offering this A330-500 Airbus offered an A330-100, 9 frames shorter than the A330-200. This was intended to be an A300 replacement. Both offerings did not end up in orders for the plane.

So I should not have used the name A330-500. But instead asked if Airbus before launching the A340-500/600 did think about offering a twin engine in this size instead of the 4 engine A340-500/600. They should at this time be very aware that the A330 was ceaper to operate.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21580 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5597 times:

Again, the 350-800 was initially envisioned as a 330-800, basically what you describe, once they saw that A340 maybe wasn't going anywhere even with the 345/6 flying. Not a GE90, but a newer engine from the GENEx family, but nearly the same size (just less thrust and more efficient).

Airlines wanted more than this, so they made some more changes and called it the 350, but it's still not as capable payload-wise as the 345 is.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4869 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5459 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

if you us the SAS emissions calculator http://www.sasems.port.se/,
on a flight eg LHR-JFK, a A330 uses 39000kg fuel, a A343 45000kg


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5334 times:

The two craft are interesting. The idea was the A340 would sacrifice take off burn performance for better cruise perfromance, and the A330 visa versa. Hence the longer flights favoured the A343. I've studied the SAS data, on a 500km the A333 would burn more than 30% less than the A343 with max pax payload. However once we get to the end of the A333's range (near 9700kms) that's down to about 12%, and if one traces a ghost estimation of the A333 beyond it's range it down to about 10% at the A343's max range (12000km). You may say, what's the point in the A343 then if it would never burn less than the A333? If the A333 was modified to mimic the A343's range/payload performance, it would weigh more and resultingly have higher fuel burn. Whether it would have been higher than the A343's i couldn't tell you, but had the IAE superfan gone through as promised it most certainly would have. Unfortunately, it didn't and the A340 suffered, which is a shame, becasue the whole 2-engine 4-engine complement is a real smart idea.

Answering the orginal question with that data in mind. The A343 is only better at missions which require a better range/payload performance than what the A333 offers. Both have a maximum structural payload between 50.8-50.9, but the A333 only flies 3000nms or so with that, the A340 can get up to about 5500nm. But you don't necessarily need all that payload, so somewhere inbetween 4,000nms and 4,500nms is a realistic threshold.

[Edited 2006-01-13 05:57:36]

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...
A330 Vs. A340 Question posted Tue Aug 21 2001 05:38:08 by US A333 PIT
Differences Between A330 And A340 posted Thu Jun 8 2006 08:46:36 by Flywithjohn
A330-300 Vs A340-300? posted Fri Apr 9 2004 16:41:21 by Mindscape
RR Powered A330-300 Vs A340-300 posted Tue Jan 6 2004 10:23:30 by Asianguy767
Airbus A330 Vs. Airbus A340 posted Mon Apr 30 2001 23:22:25 by Dutchjet
Comparing 757 Vs A340 Looks posted Sat Nov 11 2006 17:21:32 by BOACVC10
Finnair: A330 Vs A350 posted Thu Oct 26 2006 10:57:12 by Ravel
VS A340 At EMA Reg Help posted Mon Aug 14 2006 22:22:52 by EMA747
BA 777 & VS A340 @ EWR Today posted Thu Aug 10 2006 17:28:48 by Rw774477
A340-300 Vs A340-500/600 During Turbulences posted Fri Aug 4 2006 10:29:11 by LY777