ben88
Posts: 1037
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 1999 4:49 pm

A340-200 Vs. A340-300

Tue Jun 20, 2000 7:18 pm

Why are so many airlines trading in their A340-200's for -300's? Air France is the airline that immediately comes to mind. AOM and Air Tahiti Nui both have ex Air France A340-200's which are ONLY about seven years old. Why did they even purchase the aircraft if they were only planning on keeping them for six years? Is the -300 more technologically advanced, or is it just a matter of capacity?
 
ZRH
Posts: 4371
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 1999 11:32 pm

RE: A340-200 Vs. A340-300

Tue Jun 20, 2000 7:29 pm

As I know it is only a matter of capacity and range:
-200: length 59.30 m; 3 class seating 228 pax; range max:14800 km
-300: length 63.60 m; 3 class seating 260 pax; range max: 13500 km
Hope it helps.
 
ben88
Posts: 1037
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 1999 4:49 pm

RE: A340-200 Vs. A340-300

Wed Jun 21, 2000 4:29 am

Thanks ZRH, but that doesn't really answer my question as to why an airline would get rid of a six year old plane. Did they want more capacity with less range, because that is what the -300 offers them, as opposed to the -200. Thanks
 
sndp
Posts: 534
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 6:07 pm

RE: A340-200 Vs. A340-300

Wed Jun 21, 2000 4:34 am

Sabena is also selling their -200's and has ordered more -300's. I do not know really why, but they said it was because they wanted to harmonise the A340-fleet. Although their is not so much difference between the two aircraft, just the length, it seems better to operate just one type or so? I do not really know the answer on your question. Maybe they just want more capacity.
sndp

Who is online