"I love to see Thai flight the 'royal' 340-500 and -600 ! Far better than anything Boeing has to offer. Lately it seems Boeing is behind at least 5 years and then produces an exact copy of the airbus product."
Another snotty, non-constructive post meant only to flame. In what respects are the A340-500 and -600 'far better' than the competing 777 models? The respective 777s have roughly comparable range to their Airbus counterparts, in fact, as noted, the 777-200LR will have a bit more range than the A340-500. And because both 777 models are significantly lighter than their Airbus opposites, they're likely to be a bit more economical as well. If Thai doesn't want to deal with ETOPS, then it's a no-brainer-of course, they should order Airbus. But to call the 777s 'copies' of the A340s is ludicrous, why, simply because they were developed a bit later for similar missions? The 777 was originally developed from the specifications of a group of key airlines-Boeing's "Working Together" initiative which determined its' cross-section, capacity and the consensus it be a Twin, among other things. The A340/A330 was developed as an advanced derivative of the A300 using the same cross-section with a new wing; on that basis, it's more of a 'copy' than the 777 is, not that it didn't make sense for Airbus to develop it this way, it certainly did. I respect the design philosophy behind the A340 as much as I do that of the 777 and they're both incredible, cutting-edge airplanes. As of late, I've been trying to hold out an olive branch to Airbus fans, most of which are highly respectable, often chiding fellow Boeing boosters for unfair snipes. Posts such as this, however, in the best tradition of the thankfully departed Hkgspotter1, serve only to make me regret that strategy. Let's have peace AND tolerance from BOTH sides, shall we? Aren't we all sick of the relentless A vs. B tirades? Can't we just all get along? Thank you.