Cliperb777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 60 posts, RR: 0 Posted (13 years 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3429 times:
I have flown several times across the Atlantic on AF's A340's. However, I have been disappointed as far as the aircraft goes. They shake a lot and just don't feel as sturdy and comfortable as the B767. I much rather travel on a CO or DL 767-200's and 767-400's than on an A340. It just feels like, once I get into the 767, it WILL get me home safely and comfortably. A lot of you seem to like the A340's, and I am just wondering why. I am not comparing the 777 to the A340's simply because as far as comfort goes, I think the 777 is head and shoulders above the A340's. Please note that this is NOT a question regarding the looks or the technical performance of the aircraft (ETOPS included), but just mere comfort. Also, please answer ONLY if you have flown on both, the A340's and B767.
Eg777er From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 1837 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (13 years 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3247 times:
Never had the experiences you describe on the A340.
In my opinion, it's comfortable, quiet and the 2-4-2 layout in economy is a very good compromise between personal convenience and passenger numbers. And in seat 1A, let me tell you it's almost silent at the cruise...but a bit sluggish on the takeoff roll...
I haven't flown on a 767 very much in the last 5 years - just a 45 minute leg NCL-LHR in March...but have always liked them.
And the A340 is perfectly safe...as are most aircraft today.
Fritzi From United Arab Emirates, joined Jun 2001, 2762 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (13 years 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3179 times:
I like the A 340 a lot more because the cabin feels more modern. Of course it may shake sometimes because it has two more engines than the 340. I've flown with the DL 767 twice from VIE-ATL and I didn't enjoy the flight so much because the A/C felt quite aged. I also feel alot safer with four engines on a long haul flight than only two.
Udo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3157 times:
I have flown 340s of Cathay and SIA and B767s of Delta and BA and I can tell you I definitely prefer the A340. It's cabin noise is extremely low, it still feels good in turbulence (there were quite many near the Himalaya!), it's just comfortable. Better than the B767...and regarding your "unsafe" feeling aboard the A340: how many A340s have crashed so far, and how many B767s due to doubtful reasons (e.g. suicide or rudder...?)
Are you sure you mean the A340 and not the DC-3 of SAA's classic division?
Sabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (13 years 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3160 times:
As a Sabena pilot myself (not on these ladies) I have flown numerous times on Sabena's A340 and 2 times on Sobelair's B767 (a Sabena subsidiary).
Although it is difficult to compare different aircraft on different flights, I think I can have a fair shot at it because both Sabena and Sobelair operate their planes in much the same way. (performance - time - speed - fuel - etc.) Comparing different planes from different companies is not really the way to do it since a lot of the differences might be caused by how the company wants its pilots to operate their planes.
Both the B767 and the A340 are very nice aircraft but I must say that I prefer the A340.
it is a more relaxing plane to fly on.
To me riding the B767 means:
a powerfull take-off pushing you into your seat,
a lot of bumping whilst climbing,
noisy flap and gear retraction.
frequent power changes during descent profile,
spoilers that cause vibrations during descent-decelerations.
abrupt deceleration on the RWY due to reverse and brakes.
On the A340 everything seems to be going much smoother.
Take-off is less powerfull,
configuration changes are very quiet.
descent is done at real idle setting.
no abrupt stopping.
I know much of this has to do with the guys flying but as said before, I have compared between the 2 planes operated within the same group of companies.
SQ325 From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 1451 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (13 years 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3155 times:
I flow 767 from FRA to CVG and from TPA tp ATL
I flow A340 from SIN to DPS from MAD to MIA and back.
I prefer the Airbus. I feel more comfortable in the A340.
I know that the performance of the A340 is not that good, but I' ve to say that the noise inside the plane is tuely soft. softer then in any other plane I' ve flown.
that makes the A340 always a good choice for long haul flights during nights.
Na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10677 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (13 years 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3107 times:
Strange post. My experience is different. I find the A340 extremely stable and the quietest aircraft I´ve ever been on, in fact ahead of the 777. That´s the complete opposite of what you´ve been posting and I absolutely cannot understand how you came to your conclusion. The 777 "head and shoulders" ahead of the A340? Untrue and partial. Are you one of these 777 maniacs on this forum?
Peter. From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (13 years 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3092 times:
I find the A340 the most comfortable plane to fly with. Compared to other Widebodies I have flown ( DC10,MD11,A330, B744 and L1011 ) it seems to have the most quiet cabin.
Also I like it´s seating configuration alot.
I am looking forward to the A346 and I hope that the new interior design will offer a bit more space at the sidewalls which are currently just ok but not as good as on the other widebodies.
M27 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 314 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (13 years 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3077 times:
Its okay to have the feelings you have and the likes you have! You don't expect Sabenapilot, Voodoo, Gerardo, Na and the like to ever concede anything is anybetter than any Airbus, and anyone who does is a maniac, so don't worry about it and just consider the source. I think the maniac bit is a bit of a case of the Pot calling the Kettle black!
By the way, the AN 225 has to be the safest plane flying. It just makes common sense man, cause it has two more engines than even the wonderful A340.
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (13 years 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3059 times:
I like the A340 because asthetically (sp?) it looks like everything "fits". I think it's an impressive looking aircraft. I have not had the pleasure of flying on one, but I look forward to it.
As far as the 2 vs. 4 engine debate goes, I think it's blown out of proportion. In relation to ETOPS aircraft and the A340 & 747, the chances of two or more engines on todays airliners have seperate mechanical failures on the same flight is practically impossible. There has been only one instance of a simultaneous shutdown of two engines, and it would have happened to all four engines as well. Air Canada 767 glider. When you run out of go-go juice, it doesn't matter how many engines you've got, your goin' down. Another is volcanic ash. Grant it, technology has caught up with this phenomenon, so the chance of running into it anymore are slim to none. None the less, there have been four engine aircraft that have turned into gliders.
Cliperb777, maybe you should try to fly an A340 on another airline. Don't judge the aircraft with a flight you've had on one airline.
25 Cyril B
: In fact, my last topic was too brief. A four engine aircraft is safer than a twin engine one not just because its higher number of engines. A four eng
: I only flew once on a LH A340 from DTW to FRA and it was very comfortable. But I think the B767 seating arrangement is unbeatable. Click for large ver
: The A340 has to be the quietest plane I've flown on. The shaking you experienced may have been a result of local weather patterns or other climb relat
: I think the Olympic livery is cool, in that retrojet kinda way. The four engines make it gives me that 60's/70's 707/DC-8 vibe. BTW, on a slightly unr
: I flew on the A340 for the first time just 1 month ago and I was extremely impressed. Sure, it takes a while to reach cruising altitude, but it is cer
: While I like good headroom (I´m 1.97m tall) I imagine that it can become a problem for shorter people to reach the overhead compartments. It´s just
: "To me riding the B767 means: a powerfull take-off pushing you into your seat, a lot of bumping whilst climbing, noisy flap and gear retraction. frequ
: FlyVS007, First of all, how can you compare an A340 with the 767? The A340 is a MUCH MUCH MUCH heavier aircraft, and offcourse larger. Its like compar
: Again, the only ones that can answer this question are those people that have flown BOTH, A340 and B767. And, as mentioned above, I do not care about
: I have flown on a LH & VS A340 and UA 767, 777, 747 several times. I never noticed that one was quieter than the others (I'm not doubting that the A34
: I've flown both the B767 and the A340, and I've flown the A340 on one of its shortest, and one of its longest routes. Personally, in terms of cabin sp
: It'll be interesting to see what will the pilot and passenger reaction to the A340-500/600 series be when it becomes operational in the summer of 2002
: Every aircraft is the best. Everyone has their preferences as to what they like. Airbus or Boeing cant please everyone in this world. I personally lov
38 Boeing nut
: Cyril B, Are you an aeronautical engineer? Why do you say that a four engined aircraft puts less stress on the wings of a two engined aircraft? With t
: I have flown both the 767 (Air Canada, KLM) and the A340 (Air Canada) several times over both short and long distances in both cases.. from my experie
: About the Olympic A340... I think that livery makes it look like an Aeroflot IL86, that is NOT a good thing . I like Air Canada and Lufthansa's A340s.
: I never flew A340 so based on looking, I like -600 with big engines. It make it look real plane compare to older -200, -300 which I would prefer 707 o
: Whistler: I think that livery makes it look like an Aeroflot IL86, that is NOT a good thing Why is that a bad thing? I think the IL-86 is great lookin
: On this, I have flown both 767-200 and -300 along with A330 / A340 on the YYZ - YVR route many times in the last 18 months. I find that I aim for flig
: I'd say that the Airbus A340 is far safer. It has four engines, so if an engine goes out, it can still fly perfectly. If the 777 or the 767's engine w
: I think it all depends on the airline- I just flew on VS's A340s and thought they were terrible- easily one of the most uncomfortable aircraft I've ev
: It's not really that your bad experience happened because of Airbus's A340. See, the airline recieves the aircraft empty, it is then the airlines duty
: To answer somebody's question about stress on the airframe, here's th summary of why. When aan aircraft is flying, the entire weight is supported by t