KLMBlue From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 267 posts, RR: 0 Posted (14 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 719 times:
I have heard that the 747 has a shorter range than the 340. Although, why don't airlines have 340's going on trans-pacific flights. Example LAX-SYD. Why don't airlines employ the 340 when it has a longer range that the 747?
ContinentalEWR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3762 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (14 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 606 times:
Who flies LAX-SYD with an A340?
The A340 to my knowledge is the longest range aircraft in the world but it does not exceed the 747 in capacity, both cargo and passengers. Airlines flying on a
transpacific route often select the 747 because of capacity/demand issues and
speed. The A340 is slower than the 747, although by marginal amounts.
As far as comfort goes, both are fine aircraft. A prefer the A340's 2-4-2 over a
747's 3-4-3 configuration in coach, but they are nice planes to travel on. The
747 is slightly more spacious than the A340, but my experience with A340's is
limited to Virgin Atlantic Airways, so I cannot comment for sure.
Gerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 29
Reply 4, posted (14 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 560 times:
The A343 has more or less the same range as the B744. The A342 would have more or less 1000 km more range. So, it would really depend on capacity. The speed doesn't matter IMHO. If speed would be an issue, airlines would take the A342 and fly nonstop.
dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
Chiawei From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 960 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (14 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 552 times:
On paper the A342 has longer range. But in real world, the 744 is about 2-3% faster, carries more load than A342/343 with about the same range. Hence it is more economical for 744 to flight such long route.