Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing777-300 Or Airbus340-600?  
User currently offlineKonstantinos From Greece, joined Jun 2001, 389 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2328 times:

I would like to know how many of you here would choose a 777 and A340 to fly from LAX to SYD.
Please be honest about this.

Boeing 777-300

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Baldur Sveinsson



OR

Airbus 340-600

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Alfons Züllig



I would go on the A340 because I feel safer on it with 4 engines than the B777 with only 2. Why ? Say one engine fails, then only one more to go. So, both engines could fail, yes? No?
It's not an Airbus thing. If it was between the 777 and 747 I would again go on the 747.


70 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRyanb741 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 3221 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2094 times:

I've never been on an A340, so would go with the Airbus for that reason.

In these days of ETOPS I wouldn't worry about the 2 engine factor. I have been on a 777 (300 and 200) and thought it was a nice plane to fly on.

Surely it depends on the airline. What are your options in this respect?



I used to think the brain is the most fascinating part of my body. But, hey, who is telling me that?
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2068 times:

Argh, not again!! The chances of two engines failing because of unrelated events is MATHEMATICALLY INSIGNIFICANT!! If they fail because of a related event (say fuel starvation) then all four engines on a four-engined plane would fail too!!

Infact, you may be safer on a ETOPS twin, thanks to ETOPS certification. ETOPS aircraft have more back ups and redundancies than non-ETOPS a/c (of which the A340 is one). Again, this isn't an A vs. B thing, just facts.


User currently offlineUal747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2052 times:

Just because it has 4 engines, doesn't mean it's safer. Anyone who says this has little knowledge of twin engine operations and their stringent safety measures. The 777 has one of the best safety ratings in the world. I would have no doubts in flying the 777 over water, and to say that I feel safer with 4 engines would be a little naive of me, considering all that I have learned from this site on aviation. In fact, you could almost say it is safer because you will be closer to an airport to divert to in a 777 due to ETOPS, whereas on a 747/A340, you could be much further away.

Be ready to see an A vs. B war.

UAL747


User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 30
Reply 4, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2011 times:

I'd feel much safer on an A340-600. And as it seems to be quieter also, the ride might be more comfortable.

Gerardo



dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offlineUal747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1994 times:

Gerardo, so you mean to tell us that you have been on the A340-600? How do you know that it's quieter than the 777? I suggest you wait for a while before you start posting how good the ride is on the A346. And again, 4 engines is not safer than 2. To believe that is rediculous.

UAL747


User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1989 times:

Gerardo. How can you say the A340-600 "seems to be quieter". Damn, you have already flown on one?

User currently offlineNovair_332 From Sweden, joined Nov 2001, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1979 times:

I would go with the a340-600 because it´s so looong =)

User currently offlineUal747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1976 times:

Yeah, but the 777-300 is LOOONG and THIIIICK, besides, I hear its more about girth than length.
 Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineNovair_332 From Sweden, joined Nov 2001, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1971 times:

Yeah it´s long to, so here´s what I would do: I would go with the a340-600 to SYD and the 777-300 back to LAX =)

User currently offlineUal747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1954 times:

Hmm.....guess you didn't get it.......

User currently offlineNovair_332 From Sweden, joined Nov 2001, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1949 times:

What? You know I´m only 14... Yu can´t ask for to much..

User currently offlineRacko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4857 posts, RR: 20
Reply 12, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1943 times:

if a 777-300 is as noisy as a -200, I'd go with the A340-600 if it's as quite as a -300 .

2 "if's", because i've never been on the 773 neither on the A346  Smile But the A346 looks cooler


User currently offlineEjayMD11 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 193 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1940 times:

More engines might not be safer but it makes pax feel more comfortable knowing that the have extra engines so to speak. I personally would fly either. Two both great planes, but I perfer the 7 series cockpit computer lay-out better.

My Opinion
Ejay MD-11


User currently offlineCV640 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 952 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1918 times:

Considering I have flown single engine aircraft over great distances of water, I'd have no problem with getting on a twin over a quad. Actually I think there is no difference in safety, any time a twin has lost all of its engines a quad would have too, fuel problems, so I don't think that argument holds up.

User currently offlineHkgspotter1 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1926 times:

I do have a friend that flew for more then 8 Hours in a A340-600. She does work for Airbus !!

User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1895 times:

I would feel comfortable in both aircraft as long as the engines whether GE, PW, or RR are reliable to get me to my destination safely.

User currently offlineTbird From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 851 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1872 times:

Greetings:

I'm sure both are very safe and very comfortable to fly on. Having flown on neither both would be a treat. Although anything with "777" attached to it generally means a winner. Get it slot machines "777"  Laugh out loud

Happy New Year
Tom


User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 30
Reply 18, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1880 times:

UAL747, I feel safer in a quad. ETOPS might be okay, but sometimes I trust my feelings. If one engine goes down, the aircraft will have a terrible time. Major incidents, which come into my mind, involving inflight engine shutdowns are all twins, as for example the Gimli Glider, or Air Transat A332.

Simple stats: while the chance, that two engines go down, are smaller on an ETOPS-aircraft, due to better maintenance, and so on, the result is way more dangerous on a twin.

As for the quieter aircraft, I based that on the fact, that the A343 is quieter, than the B777. So, PERHAPS (you're right, this can't be judged now) the A346 has the chance to be also quieter, than the B773.

That's it

Gerardo



dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offlineBlueskies From Finland, joined Jul 2001, 59 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1869 times:

If I could make the selection totally on my own (but I can't, my company selects the airline by comparing the prices), I would choose the airline which offers the most seat pitch in the economy and good service. So, the choice would be between airlines and not between airliners in my case.

In the hypothetical case where the seat pitch etc. would be equal, I would choose the A346 because of the more convenient seating (2-4-2) in the ecomony class.

Both Boeing and Airbus produce very safe planes, so no need to discuss about that.

Greetings,
Blueskies


User currently offlineNightcruiser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1850 times:

I have never flown on the Boeing 777-300/300ER nor the Airbus A340-600. But based upon the 773's ETOPS certification and its stringent regulations I would fly on the 777-300 rather than the A340-600.

User currently offlineGunFighter 6 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2001, 404 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1843 times:

Its so funny that all the american's go for the triple seven ( almost all ).
why is that, because its an american plane ? American pride ?



User currently offlineLuckySevens From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1841 times:

Gerardo,

How will a twin have a "terrible" time if one engine goes out? They are certified to fly on one engine. The Air Canada (Gimli) and Transat episodes have to deal with fuel. If you don't have fuel, you could be on an eight engine aircraft and you're still the world's biggest glider.

Also, all of the hull-losses attributed to jet engine seperation are on 4 engine jets.


User currently offlineAamd11 From UK - Wales, joined Nov 2001, 1059 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1819 times:

I love the triple 7, but i havent been on a 340.... i have been on a 330 and i loved that too...

Given the coice though the 7 does have a lot more bin space... it was a bit awkward getting my bags in the Airbus...
But im not really that bothered, they are both amazing aircraft and i dont mind flying either....


User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1816 times:

A four engine aircraft like the 747 or A340 can stay in the air longer if it loses an engine vs. a two engine aircraft like the A300/A310/A330 or 757/767/777 where in the event of an engine failure they must head for the nearest airstrip.

25 Post contains images Boeing nut : I personnally would try to fly both as I have not been on either aircraft. Even though I am a Boeing fan, I just may like the A346 better. I have this
26 777kicksass : Please don't start this 4 is better than 2 bulls**t get it into your thick skulls: it isn't. Yes it may have been 30 years ago but not now. A 777 or a
27 Boeing nut : P.P.S. In regarding the 2 vs. 4 issue, I don't think that there has been an episode of an aircraft losing more than one engine without them all going
28 TEDSKI : Think about it, many 2, 3, or 4 engine commerical airliners flying across the Atlantic to Europe fly near areas like Nova Scotia in Canada and Greenla
29 Post contains images Lehpron : I honestly don't care as long as it gets me from point A to point B without emptying my bank account or causing me any inconviniences. Both aircraft l
30 Arsenal@LHR : Doesn't really matter if its got 2 engines 4 engines or 50 engines, if it not properly maintained, i ain't flying on it. Best wishes Arsenal@LHR
31 B20XX : Several people on this thread are saying than the B777 is noisier than the A340. Does anyone has any figures to back-up this? I'm not saying this is i
32 174thfwff : I just like Airbus aircraft better... My vote gots to A340-600 -Peace In- 174thfwff
33 Gerardo : Look, my feeling says, 4 engines are safer, than 2. For those, who are convinced, that 2 engines are safer, than 4, trust statistics, but nor your fee
34 Post contains links and images Ual747 : Dude, nothing can beat the 777, other than the 747-400. Just look at it! Click for large versionPhoto © Alan Tsui Click for large versionPhoto &c
35 Flight152 : Saying the 777-300 would have a "terrible" time flying on one engine is completly incorrect. The 777-300 is perfectly capable of even takeing off with
36 Post contains links Flying-Tiger : Flight152, you´re talking BS. EVERY Twin has to be capable of taking off with only one engine running, it is required to recieve certification. Every
37 Post contains images Fly_emirates : hey guys... i would definetely take the A340-600. i work as a flight attendant on the 777-300 and taking the A340-600 will be a change and a new exper
38 Flight152 : Flying-Tiger- Somehow, you read my entire post complectly incorrect. As I said in my other post.. 777-300 is perfectly capable of even takeing off wit
39 Dash8King : Yeah I was gonna correct him 152 but I thought you should have the honors.
40 RJ_Delta : Hi: I would prfer the Boeing 777-300LR, because is most confortable (but this depends of the airline) and is faster then the A340. The A340-600 is a g
41 Juanchito : I haven't flown in either of those, but I would love to fly first the 777-300. Juanchito
42 Nightcruiser : I totally agree with you, UAL747.
43 Post contains images Mr.BA : I personally prefer the B777. I don't believe in 4 engines is safer than 2. I don't feel that too. I like the B777 for some reasons. It is the first t
44 Post contains images Flight152 : Thanks Dash8King!
45 Post contains images Areopagus : Major incidents, which come into my mind, involving inflight engine shutdowns are all twins, as for example the Gimli Glider, or Air Transat A332. I c
46 Dash8King : I would rather die in a plane then any other place in the world.
47 Gerardo : BTW, what's going on with SQ's ETOPS 180 certification? They had some major safety issues last year. Gerardo
48 Flying-Tiger : Flight 152, you made it sound if only the B777-300 is capabale of taking off with only one engine...
49 Twr75 : The one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that on the LAX-SYD route, a twin engined aricraft would have to fly a longer distance than the quad. The
50 Airbus_A340 : I flew the 777-200 and the 777-300 just over a week ago. I have also flown on the A330-300 and the A340-300 several times. I have to say I was impress
51 Tom_eddf : Mr.BA, as far as I know economic crusing speed for the 345/346 is m.83-m.84, with a maximum (mmo) of m.86. For the cockpits, I think they are similar
52 TWA717_200 : GunFighter 6: Its so funny that all the american's go for the triple seven ( almost all ). why is that, because its an american plane ? American pride
53 Delta-flyer : I remember there was a DC10 crash where an engine disabled the hydraulics system (?) and the pilots used differiential thrust to get the plane down. T
54 TakeflightVA : A346 without a doubt
55 Post contains images 777236ER : You do realise that if two engines fail in a near-MTOW 747/A340, (especially if they were on the same side) it would be VERY unlikely that it could ma
56 Lugonza_2001 : I would love to fly on any of them. i must say that i prefer the 777-200 than the 777-300, it looks more balanced, i can see it taking off here in mad
57 Joni : Either plane could make the flight and the key point for me would be ticket price. One marginally relevant point on the 2 vs 4 debate is that if dive
58 Lubcha132 : i'd stick with the 7
59 Areopagus : 777236ER, if you lost 2 engines of a quad while 2000 miles from the nearest airfield, it's a cinch that you have burned off a lot of fuel and are much
60 Baec777 : -ð-T R I P L E | S E V E N | A L L | T H E | W A Y-ð- baec777
61 Post contains images 777236ER : Aeropagus -- could it be someone has sense?! Hehe, I admit all the points you make. I am pointing out that 4 vs 2 shouldn't be just seen as "it has mo
62 Vafi88 : Go with the 777-300 because you get those huge engines that you get to stare at all flight! The 777 can cruise with one engine and take off with one t
63 9V-SVA : I would take the Boeing 777-300.It is much more spacious than the Airbus A340-600. 9V-SVA
64 Baec777 : -ð-T R I P L E | S E V E N | A L L | T H E | W A Y |-ð- -ð-B O E I N G | 7 7 7 - 2 0 0 | E X T E N D E D | R A N G E-ð- -ð-R O L L S | R O Y C E
65 Baec777 : I was thinking Boeing 772ER would do the route like B773 would fly from LAX-AKL. What about DFW-SYD, will a B772ER do the route...?? baec777
66 Ual747 : The 777-200LR could do the route, in fact Boeing stated this in it's marketing of the LR, but I don't know if there is any ETOPs restrictions....... U
67 Post contains images Mr.BA : Thanks Tom for the help on the A346. 9V-SVA: How did you know the B777-300 is more spacious than the A340-600? I am quite certain not a lot of people
68 OO-AOG : The A346. Nothing to do with the 4 engines, but seating configuration. 2-4-2 is the best. I've been on the 773 before, great airplane, but the A340 is
69 Ual747 : Listen, we are all smart enough here to know to ask for an aisle or window seat......I have NEVER been in the middle section of a 777, I ALWAYS get my
70 Post contains links Areopagus : How did you know the B777-300 is more spacious than the A340-600? Granted that it is Boeing marketing material, but see the comparative cross-section
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...
Lufthansa's Current Flag Ship: 747-400 Or A340-600 posted Fri Aug 1 2008 08:15:16 by Columba
PTVs In Delta 767-300 Or 737-800 Yet? posted Thu May 10 2007 15:47:51 by ATLflyer
Virgin Blue: 5 777-300ER Or A340-600 posted Sat Sep 30 2006 23:29:15 by PITrules
Boeing 767-300: 4 Or 6 Doors? posted Fri Jul 8 2005 23:46:48 by KLMcedric
717-300 Vs. 737-600 posted Sun Jul 18 2004 21:25:48 by Cumulonimbus
Virgin Atlantic A340-300 Versus A340-600 posted Sat Nov 8 2003 00:58:14 by BCAInfoSys
A319/A320?A321 Or B737-600/700/800? posted Mon Oct 20 2003 23:00:55 by Canadi>nBoy
AA A-300 Or B767 At PBI Today? posted Fri Aug 22 2003 01:58:00 by Jeffie813
Does LH Use The A340-300 Or A340-200 To Atl? posted Sat Oct 12 2002 02:24:58 by Airplanetire
Delta 767-300 Or Co 757-200 Internationally posted Wed Sep 18 2002 15:12:41 by Eire24