Guest

A340 Vs Boeing 777

Wed Jan 19, 2000 3:40 pm

Which is your favorite of these newer models. I've flown the A340 several times and think its the most confortable aircraft in service, but havent flown on the 777. Any thoughts, comparisons?
 
First Class
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2000 3:46 pm

RE: A340 Vs Boeing 777

Wed Jan 19, 2000 4:02 pm

I have flown both types recently. The tripple seven clearly outpaces the narrow A340.

Even though Airbus claims that passengers prefer the A340 over the 777 it must be said at this point that I can't imagin that anybody prefers the A340 over the 777.

It seems that the Airbus figures are manipulated as following: They compared the short to medium-haul 777's used mainly on intra-Asia routes with the A340 only used on long-haul routes.
The cabin layout (pitch; 6, 7, 8, or 9-abreast) differs of course between a short and long-haul aircraft.

If you compare however apples with apples (i.e. long-haul with long-haul) the tripple seven is in any case the preferred passengers choice.
 
TWA717_200
Posts: 1410
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 1999 3:51 am

RE: A340 Vs Boeing 777

Wed Jan 19, 2000 4:04 pm

For the popular answer, go here:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777survey/

 
Guest

RE: A340 Vs Boeing 777

Wed Jan 19, 2000 4:04 pm

Well, I like both aircrafts a lot. They are both excellent planes. But if I had to choose one, it would be the 777. I just like it!

-WiL SW737
 
acvitale
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 8:25 am

RE: A340 Vs Boeing 777

Wed Jan 19, 2000 4:07 pm

I prefer the 777 to the A330/340 anytime....

Of course I like the DC-9, MD80/90 better than the 727/757/A320 as well so that kind of puts me in the minority too!
 
Guest

RE: A340 Vs Boeing 777

Wed Jan 19, 2000 5:37 pm

Me love 777.Me hate A340
 
megatop
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 9:52 pm

RE: A340 Vs Boeing 777

Wed Jan 19, 2000 5:51 pm

I have flown on both A340-300E and B777-200 with SIA.

Both planes are great. There is not that much different, so I can not tell which I would prefer.

I think there is to much hate/love Airbus/Boeing on Airliners Net. Everybody please stop this item.
 
Guest

RE: A340 Vs Boeing 777

Wed Jan 19, 2000 6:38 pm

Both aircrafts are aesthetically very beautiful. I just can't decide which is my favorite among this two. Personally, the A340 looks more beautiful in flight. The triple 7 looks cooler with that 6 wheel truck undercarriage extended.
I read many views saying the A340 climbs very slowly. I verified it myself comparing many 777, 747, 340 take-offs... The 340 is indeed a slow overweight granny... working very hard to lift off, climbing as if she's stalled in midair, nevertheless very graceful. Used up a whole lot more runway.
The triple7 seems to be the better performance aircraft, with less flimsy-looking wings than the 330/340s(sometimes they give a feeling they're gonna snap with any more weight to it)
Overall, the triple7 seems like a more rigid plane, nice proportions, the 340 is a graceful plane to look at.

 
na
Posts: 9170
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: A340 Vs Boeing 777

Wed Jan 19, 2000 6:57 pm

Thank you, Megatop,
thats exactly my opinion. I hate to read it any more that many Americans obviously love to hate Airbus, and some Europeans have the same problem with Boeing. Thats childish. A340 and B777 are very similar in quality feel when you are inside, and I only prefer the A340 because I think it looks better from the outside.
Its only a matter of personal taste.
 
Lauda 777
Posts: 452
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 9:37 pm

RE: A340 Vs Boeing 777

Wed Jan 19, 2000 7:49 pm

I am a european! What i like? Just look at my user name....

But the A340 is nice too...
Joystick for flightsim. Yokes for real planes.
 
VH-OJO
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 11:54 pm

RE: A340 Vs Boeing 777

Wed Jan 19, 2000 8:05 pm

You must make a more specific comparison. It is not fair to generally compare the two aircraft. It´s like comparing a Ford Explorer to Jeep Grand Cherokee. You must know the features of both to make a fair assessment. I can say that I much prefer LH A340 to UA 777 with its crampy seats, but to say that A340 is a better plane than 777 based on that one observation would be ridiculous. As someone already said to a large extend it all comes down to a matter of taste.

Personally, based on my experience, I think that from a passengers´ standpoint A340 is superior to 777. From the standpoint of plane enthusiast and an amateur pilot, I would prefer to fly 777 over A340 anytime. But maybe a comparison between A330 and 777 would be more proper as these planes are closer to one another in similarities.
 
Kottan
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2000 8:42 pm

RE: A340 Vs Boeing 777

Wed Jan 19, 2000 8:48 pm

Hi there (my first entry!)

I've flown the A340 a few times (AF and SQ) and once the 777 (SQ).
What I disliked on the 777 is the noise of the engines during flight. It's a noise, which get's on the travellers nervs during long-haul flights. Therefore the cabin-noise of the A340 is reasonable.

As far as I know - concerning the TakeOff-Data of the A340 - Airbus had difficulties in getting the desired Engines. Like, they had to sell their model with less powerful engines than expected.

I liked very much the width of the 777-Cabin really huge. But my flights on the A340 (all Business) were really comfortable.

Greetings to all
Frank
 
TCA256
Posts: 695
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 1999 3:59 am

RE: A340 Vs Boeing 777

Thu Jan 20, 2000 3:37 am

these topics over "A320 Vs B737" or "A340 Vs B777"
are childish debates...some say Airbus is good, others
not...aren't there more interesting debates or more
technical aspects on the debate ???  
 
USAirways737
Posts: 986
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 7:20 am

If You Dont Like It Dont Read It!

Thu Jan 20, 2000 7:03 am

Okay?
 
Guest

RE: A340 Vs Boeing 777

Thu Jan 20, 2000 8:21 am

For overseas flights, I would take the 4-engine A340 over the 2-engine 777 for safety reasons.
 
User avatar
ravi
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:04 am

Hey Tedski!

Thu Jan 20, 2000 10:12 am

Nice touch, bringing safety into the equation.

Of course you're completely wrong, but then you've gotten a response out of me, and it was probably your original intention to come up with some sort of ill-informed scandal.
 
Guest

777

Thu Jan 20, 2000 10:23 am

777 w/o a doubt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Happy-flier
Posts: 286
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 1999 4:41 pm

RE: A340 Vs Boeing 777

Thu Jan 20, 2000 12:44 pm

Well, I haven't flown on EITHER of the two, so I will give a purely subjective, esthetically-motivated reply: I say the A-340, because it has a unique look to it (i.e. 4 engines, large wings, single level fuselage; sort of reminds me of the stretch DC-8). The 777 looks much like a large 767, so for originality I pick the A-340.
May the wind be always at your back . . . except during takeoff & landing.
 
TCA256
Posts: 695
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 1999 3:59 am

RE: A340 Vs Boeing 777

Thu Jan 20, 2000 7:40 pm

Oh c'mon guys, you're spending so much time on this
debate when 80% of us aren't real airlines pilot or even
FA's or technical engineers: all answers are based on
personal tastes........and not
on serious point of view (technical aspects, and so on).
Could someone here write why Airbus or Boeing is
better except such arguments "I'm American and.....",
"I'm European and.....": for the one who said that
he won't never fly long-haul on B777, don't you know
about ETOPS ???   for the other one who said " all passengers like B777", I wonder on which basis you're
stating such things except on your own opinion 'cause
real airplanes lovers I know love both B777 and A340 !!
enough for that low level debate...
 
LHMark
Posts: 7048
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 2:18 am

RE: A340 Vs Boeing 777

Fri Jan 21, 2000 2:50 am

I've never flown on either, so I can only comment from an exterior, asthetic point of view. I think the A340 takes the beauty prize hands down. Since the only other frontline, western, 4 engine long hauler is the 747, the A340 exhibits a lot of flair, and almost a retro quality. Happy-flier is right about the trip-7 looking like a big 767, with an anemic tail and that weird, humpy forward fuselage. I don't know which one's more comfortable or exhibits better performance, but I know which one I'd rather drool over.
"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
 
Guest

RE: Hey Tedski!

Fri Jan 21, 2000 9:56 am

Hey Ravi Boy!!! I get my information like you from my aviation magazines!!! In I believe the Nov 99 issue of the magazine AIRWAYS, there is an article about ETOPS and it mentions some of the disadvantages of using a 2-engine aircraft like the 777 on overseas flights where if you have some kind of in-flight failure of one of your 2 engines you have to head for the nearest airport as soon as possible. With a 4-engine aircraft like the 747 or A340, you don't have to panic, you have the other 3 engines to keep you in the air longer!!!!
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

Love The A340

Fri Jan 21, 2000 3:30 pm

Absolutely, without a doubt. Love the A340. It's a marvelous airplane. It's the quietest airplane I've ever flown on. Comfortable, no more than one seat away from an aisle..Love the airplane -And yes-, the 4 engines matter to me, I'm from the old school and will stick by it. Saw how the USAF believed in it and how it worked, redundancies matter.

Absolutely, -they matter-.

Especially when we are reading of problems on the GE90 equipped 777s of earlier vintage that must have their engines pulled. If that doesnt say something about the vulnerability of a twin on ultra-long haul routes, then I dont know what does.

But, for sure, "spinning" isnt new in this day and age, effectively I might add, and especially this industry. I always keep in mind the same company has tried to "spin" the 737 rudder problems also (another story yes, but indeed still, the same company, hence my distrust and my sense of "why hurry"?) .

The next thing I expect to hear or read is that flying on -one- engine across the Pacific is safer than two.

My humble two drachmas on this.

MAC
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

One More Reason It's The A340 For Me..

Fri Jan 21, 2000 3:37 pm

In reference to LHmarks comments..I cant help but be struck by the A340s looks as well. Its elegant as ever to me, and indeed it reminds me of another classy airplane, the Douglas DC-8. The A340 in a way reminds me of that beautiful airplane..only a wider version of it. (Grin)

Regards
MAC
 
Philly Phlyer
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun May 23, 1999 12:05 pm

MAC_Veteran

Sat Jan 22, 2000 1:27 am

As to your points regarding spinning and ability to tell the truth, I don't think there are many companies in a league with Airbus or Boeing when it comes to spinning and manipulating the facts to the press. Neither one has been noted for frankness and acceptance of shortcomings or problems in their products.

As the saying goes, would you buy a used car from either one?? [Not unless you were a mechanic or had one for a brother-in-law.]

 
kaitak
Posts: 8969
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: A330 -v- 777

Sat Jan 22, 2000 1:51 am

Okay, I know this thread was about the A340 on the 777, but I hope you'll accept an answer that relates mostly to the A330, as I have much more experience on that. I flew both with CX and have also flown the A330 with Korean and of course, my own dear old Aer Lingus. The 777 is a marvellous aircraft. The one thing that annoyed me about Delta's aircraft was that it has big boxes under each seat (which I assume are something to do with the flight entertainment system) and these impede legroom. That's more an airline than an aircraft issue. From a passenger's point of view, there's really not much between them and I do love flying in a 777. I can't really say I prefer one over the other and at the end of the day, it will probably be down to the airline. If you have a lousy flight with an Airbus airline and a good one with a 777 operator, it might well affect your view. That's escaping the point a little, but for me, that's how close they are.
 
Amir
Posts: 1224
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 1999 8:56 pm

RE: A340 Vs Boeing 777

Sat Jan 22, 2000 6:24 am

Well, in fact it is not realy fair to compare the the 777 with the A340.
I always tend to see both sides of the story. The aviation-lover side and the aviation commercial side.

personally if i can choose i will go for the 777 especially when flying in coach, the 777 appears more spacious and the arrangement of the overhead bins is great. ( i flew the 777 of UA, CX)

The A340 (i flew the A340 of LH, UL and VS) is designed for very long range flights (777 rather a medium to long haul therefore the real comparision should be -as stated by others- with the330)

From an operational view, both are very efficient and most airlines will look for other criterias if they ever have to choose between the two.i.e. similarity with other existing aircrafts in the fleet, route pattern, cargo capacity, crew training...)

 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

Philly Phlyer

Sat Jan 22, 2000 1:06 pm

I absolutely agree. It's practiced to an -extreme- level.

The level of virtiol between the two companies has created this venomous atmosphere that unfortunately produces the spin-doctoring and in many ways truth-bereft nonsense that I find to be unprecedented.

Now this may come across as a slam on Boeing, but it's a sincerely held view that I've arrived at over time, and knowing many in the industry as well whpo have also confirmed it. One of the biggest problems in my view when it comes to Boeing is their aloofness and outright arrogance when it comes to their product-line and how infallible and above reproach it seems. To me it crossed the line when I began to dig on the 737 rudder problems and the minutae of methods and extremes Boeing went to cover it's ass so it wouldnt get any blame. The Seattle Post Intelligencer 6 part report exposing some of the outlandish and in my view unethical practices that were attemped to protect the 737 just flat out disgusted me and tainted my previous respect for this company. The current acid climate since only adds life to this distaste and yes, distrust.

Airbus then in turn replies with their own points, and then the rhetoric just escalates. There are quite a few egoes involved in this. I really have detected the Boeing side feel slighted by this "bodacious little European pipsqueak dare challenge our superiority" schism in certain ways..it's humorous in some ways but so assinine on the other. I will say that Airbus gets it's licks in the bar-room as well, I think some of their defensiveness comes from the joint A3XX project they approached Boing with a few years ago then got snubbed by Boeing in it. The feelings of bitterness have been escalating ever since. The feeling that I read from one interview last year of John Leahy, Airbus VP really keyed in on this splitup that seemingly served as the staring point for all this. Once Boeing dismissed Airbus's ideas and began to actively mount a PR effort to focus on fragmentation and belittling the need for an ultra-large aircraft, the gloves came off.

To Airbus it smacked of extreme aloofness and they bristled at it, The proverbial "holier than thou American" mentality shone bright to them and reacting to it. That in turn that served as Airbus's marketing department rallying point to basically -sock it to Boeing- (and for that matter I say, more power to Airbus as the consumer benefits in a competitive environment, and if that angers or hurts Almighty Boeing's feelings, So what?

They deserved it in my view, A swift and sharp -spanking- by Airbus for the spoiled brat they became.(that felt -good- saying that (LOL!)....

The whole thing since has been one hip-boot level of dirt flying back and forth though. Not sure when it ends.


Regards
MAC

Philly phlyer wrote:
-------------------------------
As to your points regarding spinning and ability to tell the truth, I don't think there are many companies in a league with Airbus or Boeing when it comes to spinning and manipulating the facts to the press. Neither one has been noted for frankness and acceptance of shortcomings or problems in their products.

As the saying goes, would you buy a used car from either one?? [Not unless you were a mechanic or had one for a brother-in-law.]

 
Skystar
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2000 3:58 pm

RE: A340 Vs B777 & The Wonders Of Etops

Sat Jan 22, 2000 10:43 pm

While we draw comparisons between the 777 & the A340, has anyone noticed that in one respect with engines the two are similar.

Both aircraft have engines which are stretched to their maximum (well, there abouts, the 777 is pretty damned powerful at its current state) - we've had the 777 engine problems & the A340 engine problems.

Noticed that the A340s CFM56s are basically as boosted up as they can be, IIRC SQ was having some problems with their CFM56s after a while (on a plane like the 343E you would need ever bit of thrust you could get - they even had a 4% "Thrust Bump" added.

Back to the 2 vs 4 engine subject, 2 engines are not as bad as you would think. Their shortcomings are that over long water routes you have to follow ETOPS and in some cases that may result in having a route longer than optimal (given that you have to be within 180mins flying time of the nearest airport) and their perceived shortfall in safety over quad engined craft.

However 2 engine craft have the advantage of having extra power for normal circumstances and this is illustrated best by the superior climb characteristics of the 777 over the A340. ETOPS aircraft also have stricter maintenance schedules and thus tend to be more reliable (regulations stipulate this).

A twin engined craft on one engine should have as much power as a quad engined craft on 3 engines. Climb performance requirements are the same regardless of the amount of engines, so in the respect of losing an engine on takeoff a twin engined craft is just as safe as a quad engined one - and safer in NORMAL circumstances (normal being where you have all engines)

Engine failures/shutdowns are few. In the modern era, there has never been an aircraft accident due to a loss of thrust during cruise and there has never been an incident where an ETOPS aircraft lost both engines. A pointer to the fact that more engines doesn't give you more security is the Eastern L1011 incident, where it almost ditched in water off of Miami due to related engine problems with all 3 engines (which would not have happened if the aircraft was operated under ETOPS rules) & if it was a 777. ETOPS rules provide strict limits on the operation of aircraft, which further your safety. They are actually equipped for ditching (which has never happened) & have more safety systems over their quad engined friends.

As a twin jet is "overpowered" the engines can be derated further on takeoff, while still providing a sufficient safety margin, saving the engine wear & tear. Quad engined craft require high power settings.

Because of a twin jet's better power characteristics, a twin jet is safer in other trying circumstances; it will cope better in windshear, be able to perform GPWS escape manourvres better, be able to perform go arounds better, not to mention climb better in normal circumstances. So in the bulk of safety situations a twin will actually be safer.

If you want to talk about losing engines, worst case scenario is losing two engines on a quad, so people ask what happens if you lose two on a twin? Actually, if we look at the incidents with quad engined craft losing two engines, such as the United 747 at Honolulu and the ElAl 747 at Amsterdam, we see some thing else.

The engine failures were related, in the UA plane debris from the fuselage caused both engines on the same side to fail, in the ElAl incident, the explosion of one engine caused the other to fail.

But, has the plane been a twin jet, you would have only lost one engine. And to look at numbers, a twin jet would have 100% of its engine out performance, but the quad jet - only 67% of required engine out (FAIL)performance (I know which one I'd want to be on). Had these events occurred closer to the ground, a crash could be quite possible in a quad jet; they would not be able to meet minimum climb requirements.

You see, ETOPS is quite good in the sense that it is a lot safer. Because the regulators believe that quad jets are immune from problems related to engine failure, they can fly anywhere (within reason), where as twin jets have to be within 3 hrs flying time from an alternate. But isn't that better, twin jets comfortably fly on one engine (they're designed to), but if you're in a quad jet, who knows how bloody far you could be from an alternate - that's more important. And ETOPS stipulates that the alternates have to be available (ie weather issues), whereas with a quad jet, you have no guarantee about the availability of your alternate.

For example, what if you have a fire on board. It doesn't matter how many engines you have, but how close you are to an alternate might help.

Twin jets are much better equipped to survive windshear & CFIT situations, two leading accident causes in recent years. Unrelated, total engine failures are not leading causes, in fact are unheard of in modern times. ETOPS aircraft are better equipped for related engine failures than quad jets.

So to summarise, twins are safer under NORMAL circumstances, under ENGINE OUT circumstances - they're bloody safer than you think!

That's why, I feel just as safe boarding a 777 over an A340, a B767 over B747 (heck, maybe safer, mind you I don't care, given that I fly Ansett). So, if you're still not convinced, let me ask you one question.

"Has there ever been an incident involving an ETOPS aircraft where the aircraft has lost both engines in unrelated cirucumstances?"

The A340 is quieter than the 777 and its cabin layout is quite good (never more than 1 seat away from a row) and good in the sense that you can't squeeze extra rows in, ala 777 - 9 abreast vs 10 abreast. From a pilots perspective it's a great plane, apart from the power. Some like it, dont mind it, some wish it had a bit more grunt. At lower weights, it would be quite good. The difference between the 777 and the A340 is that the A340 is almost more exclusively used on long haul routes, where as the 777 is quite likely to be found doing regional routes as well. You won't find many A340s doign 1-2hr hops, that's why we have the A330. And I'll point out that comparisons between the A330 & B777 may also be invalidated by the fact that the A333 is a real short haul aircraft, like it or not and that is reflected in the way airlines configure them.

And in all the light of this, I'm actually divided between the A340 & the B777 - they both have their good points.

I'm sorry if this has been long, but at least you'll probably have learnt something.

Cheers,

Justin

PS: NO, I do not advocate single engined craft.