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.
777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2136 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.
Ual747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2120 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.
Ual747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2062 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.
EjayMD11 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 193 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2008 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.
CV640 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 952 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1986 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.
Tbird From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 851 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1940 times:
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"
Gerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 30
Reply 18, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1948 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.
dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
Blueskies From Finland, joined Jul 2001, 59 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1937 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.
LuckySevens From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1909 times:
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.
Aamd11 From UK - Wales, joined Nov 2001, 1061 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1887 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....
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1884 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 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
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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
: I just like Airbus aircraft better... My vote gots to A340-600 -Peace In- 174thfwff
: 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