KLMBLue
Posts: 264
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2000 5:36 am

Boeing 747 Vs. Airbus 340

Fri Nov 17, 2000 5:41 am

I have heard that the 747 has a shorter range than the 340. Although, why don't airlines have 340's going on trans-pacific flights. Example LAX-SYD. Why don't airlines employ the 340 when it has a longer range that the 747?
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 3619
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

RE: Boeing 747 Vs. Airbus 340

Fri Nov 17, 2000 5:55 am

Who flies LAX-SYD with an A340?

The A340 to my knowledge is the longest range aircraft in the world but it does not exceed the 747 in capacity, both cargo and passengers. Airlines flying on a
transpacific route often select the 747 because of capacity/demand issues and
speed. The A340 is slower than the 747, although by marginal amounts.

As far as comfort goes, both are fine aircraft. A prefer the A340's 2-4-2 over a
747's 3-4-3 configuration in coach, but they are nice planes to travel on. The
747 is slightly more spacious than the A340, but my experience with A340's is
limited to Virgin Atlantic Airways, so I cannot comment for sure.

ContinentalEWR
 
gkirk
Posts: 23347
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: Boeing 747 Vs. Airbus 340

Fri Nov 17, 2000 6:07 am

The A340-200 has a longer range than the 747, Im not sure about the A340-300 though, I think the 744 has a longer range than that.
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
gkirk
Posts: 23347
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: Boeing 747 Vs. Airbus 340

Fri Nov 17, 2000 6:08 am

The A340-200 has a longer range than the 747, Im not sure about the A340-300 though, I think the 744 has a longer range than that.
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
gerardo
Posts: 3372
Joined: Sun May 21, 2000 6:22 pm

RE: Boeing 747 Vs. Airbus 340

Fri Nov 17, 2000 6:13 am

The A343 has more or less the same range as the B744. The A342 would have more or less 1000 km more range. So, it would really depend on capacity. The speed doesn't matter IMHO. If speed would be an issue, airlines would take the A342 and fly nonstop.

Regards
Gerardo
dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
 
chiawei
Posts: 927
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 9:07 am

RE: Boeing 747 Vs. Airbus 340

Fri Nov 17, 2000 6:17 am

On paper the A342 has longer range. But in real world, the 744 is about 2-3% faster, carries more load than A342/343 with about the same range. Hence it is more economical for 744 to flight such long route.
 
Guest

RE: Boeing 747 Vs. Airbus 340

Fri Nov 17, 2000 7:46 am

ContinentalEWR, 340 and 330 have more cargo capacity than the 747.
 
cba
Posts: 4228
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2000 2:02 pm

RE: Boeing 747 Vs. Airbus 340

Fri Nov 17, 2000 7:48 am

The A340-200 has longer range than a 744, but it only carries 250 pax. The A340-300 and 744 have identical range, about 7,300nm. The 343 carries 295 pax, the 744 carries 416 pax. The A340-200 has no real competitor (and never really sold well). The A340-300 competes with the 777-200.
 
Guest

RE: Boeing 747 Vs. Airbus 340

Fri Nov 17, 2000 9:43 am

Many airlines do use the A340's on Trans-Pacific routes...for example Air Canada flies many of it's Trans-Pacific routes to Asia using it's A340-300's so they definitely have the range...I think the main reason the 747's are used is the capacity like other users have suggested.
 
Ady
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2000 10:30 am

RE: Boeing 747 Vs. Airbus 340

Fri Nov 17, 2000 10:04 am

A 747 is more economical because of its higher passenger capacity than a 340 so I guess thats why airlines prefer to use 747s instead.
If u ever feel depressed about urself, just remember that at one time you were the most vicious sperm in ur group.
 
tullamarine
Posts: 1614
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

RE: Boeing 747 Vs. Airbus 340

Fri Nov 17, 2000 11:27 am

The reason no airline has used the A340 on the SYD-LAX route is the route is serviced by only 3 airlines, all of whom only have Boeings in their wide-bodied long haul fleet.

Airlines such as Aerolineas Argentina and Lan Chile use their A340s across the South Pacific.
717,721/2,732/3/4/5/7/8/9,742/3/4,752/3,762/3,772/E/W,300,310,319,320/1,332/3,388,DC9,DC10,F28,F100,142,143,E90,CR2,D82/3/4,SF3,ATR
 
TK
Posts: 222
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2000 11:41 am

RE: Boeing 747 Vs. Airbus 340

Fri Nov 17, 2000 11:29 am

Guys, the 747 is not more economical. On a typical flight, an A340 burns up to 40% less fuel than a 744. Furthermore, the cargo capacity of the A340 exceeds that of the 744. So airlines can break even even with no passengers on board. Cathay Pacific for example, operates its passenger configured A330's on night cargo flights for DHL.

If the route demands a greater capacity, then of course it makes more sense to operate a 747. But if the it is a low density route, then smaller aircraft like the A340 would suit the mission better.

Both Air Canada and Cathay Pacific operates A340's on trans-pacific flights.
 
United Airline
Posts: 8773
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: Boeing 747 Vs. Airbus 340

Fri Nov 17, 2000 11:30 am

The 747 is the most cost effective aircraft in the world in terms of its cost VS the capacity of it.

The A 342 has a longer range than the 747-400 while for A 343, its about the same as the 744.

However, while they all fully loaded, the B 747-400 can fly longer than the A 342/3.

Hope this helps!
 
rabenschlag
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 10:28 pm

Market Segmentation / A3XX

Fri Nov 17, 2000 7:27 pm

so what is the bottom line?

while it remains unclear which aircraft is more economical with max payload, it appears that the 744 is favoured because of its higher pax capacity.

doesnt that speak to AI's thesis that larger aircrafts like the A3XX will be needed in the future?



 
steman
Posts: 1406
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 4:55 pm

RE: Market Segmentation / A3XX

Fri Nov 17, 2000 7:37 pm

Hi,
someone wrote that both A330 and A340 have more cargo capacity than a pax B747-400 and this isn't the first time I heard of it.
How can it be possible considering the wider 747 fuselage?

Ciao

Stefano
 
Airbus_A340
Posts: 1439
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2000 8:41 pm

RE: Boeing 747 Vs. Airbus 340

Fri Nov 17, 2000 8:09 pm

Stefano, check it out on airbus's webpage, it is a fact that the A340 has more cargo capacity
i think that the A340 should be more economical if you think about it in terms of cargo and pax and that it burnes 40% less fuel.
Trev AKA Airbus_A340
People. They make an airline. www.cathaypacific.com
 
RIX
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: Boeing 747 Vs. Airbus 340

Sat Nov 18, 2000 12:08 am

It is quite possible A340 has more cargo capacity than 747 but how can the following be compared:

www.boeing.com: 6,025 ft3 (170.5 m3)= 30 LD-1 containers; 5,332 ft3 (151 m3)= 5 pallets, 14 LD-1 containers + bulk (one pallet = 96 in x 125 in/244 cm x 318 cm)

www.airbus.com: After allowing for full passenger baggage in containers, the A330-200 offers space for five freight pallets, more than in its two nearest competitors. This rises to eight pallets in the A330/A340-300s, again beating the nearest competitor, and ten pallets in the A340-600, twice the capacity of the 747-400.

Exact numbers for Boeing and some numbers combined with "after allowing for full baggage" for Airbus... reminds their picture that "proves" 330/340 has more headroom than "competition"... Even worse for them if 340 has really more capacity than 747, but they can't properly tell of this!

It doesn't matter which of them is more economical: their passenger capacity differs too much, so which one is better depends only on seats demand.
 
Guest

RE: Boeing 747 Vs. Airbus 340

Sat Nov 18, 2000 1:00 am

The 747 is the best over the A340 as far as passenger & cargo capacity. With engines made by P&W, GE, and RR with over 60,000lbs thrust this plane will make it to it's destination quicker than the underpowered CFM56 powered A340-200/300. According to some people that flew on Olympic Airways A340-300s from ATH to JFK, it takes 11 hrs vs. 9.5 hrs with the old higher thrust high passenger capacity 747-200s to cross the Atlantic. I hope the new high capacity higher thrust RR Trent powered A340-500/600 will close the gap.
 
Red Panda
Posts: 1433
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2000 12:58 pm

RE: Boeing 747 Vs. Airbus 340

Sat Nov 18, 2000 1:44 am

even tho A340 has longer range, 744 has way more pax capacity than A340. A340 can sit only 250-300 pax while 744 can sit up to 416 with three class configuration. A340 is for long range routes with light pax traffic (ex. HKG-YYZ, while 744 is for long range routes w/ high pax traffic, such as JFK-NRT) Hope this help.

Best Regards,
R Panda
 
Red Panda
Posts: 1433
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2000 12:58 pm

RE: Economics In Terms Of SEAT-MILE

Sat Nov 18, 2000 2:14 am

GUYS!!!!!!!!! What criterions are you guys using to judge!!! Most of you guys are right. It is just a matter of what criteria you guys are using. I don't think A340 would really burn 40% less fuel per seat-mile since Airbus Claims that A340-500 would burn 10% less fuel per seat-mile than 744. A342/343 actually burns more than 744 per seat-mile, but it is more economic to use 342/343 for routes with less passengers. Would you guys think that it would be economic to fly 744 on a route that only has 200 pax on each flight? 340 would be more suitable for the job. If number of pax exceed the the capacity of A340, then 744 would be more suitable. GUYS, got it? 744 and A340 are not real competitors! A340 is more competitive to 772/772ER.

Regards  ,
R Panda
 
Guest

RE: Boeing 747 Vs. Airbus 340

Sat Nov 18, 2000 7:30 am

ding ding...... in this corner the airbus group from toulhouse france........an in this corner the boeing group from seattle U.S. I want a good clean fight, and no hanky panky!

Here we go again!

B r i t A i r 7 7 7
 
VC-10
Posts: 3546
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 1999 11:34 am

RE: Boeing 747 Vs. Airbus 340

Sat Nov 18, 2000 7:44 am

Red Panda has got the right idea. The 340 was not designed as a competitor to the 747. It is for use on routes where the pax loads cannot support a 747.
 
airnewzealand
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 6:00 pm

RE: Boeing 747 Vs. Airbus 340

Sat Nov 18, 2000 8:14 am

RED PANDA,
Anairline that used the 744 with under 200 passengers was SQ. Luky though they only had that much on board or the death tally would have rised in the SQ006 flight.
Cheers
mikey  
 
GE
Posts: 312
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2000 5:01 pm

RE: Boeing 747 Vs. Airbus 340

Sat Nov 18, 2000 9:07 am

Hmm, that's really got me thinking. Why did SQ use a 747-400 for SQ006 when they could use an A340? The passenger load (182 pax)was within the A343's passenger capacity. Wouldn't it be more economical to use an A343?
 
Skystar
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2000 3:58 pm

RE: Why?

Sat Nov 18, 2000 1:19 pm

It's all a matter of scheduling and getting the aircraft right for the route.

Asia-LAX routes are generally quite high capacity, and certainly are not "thin" routes, hence the use of a 744. On this day, obviously the loads weren't that great.

You have full flights, and less full flights. You can't expect a flight to be fullish everyday, it just won't happen. What happens if you have very good loads on the other end?

If it was so easy to swap aircraft looking at the load, I'm sure it would be done. Remember, you just can't pull a plane off and chuck it on another route - won't be easy. Then again, maybe those F customers would be annoyed at having the lesser F seats in the 343.

There must be a reason why 340s aren't that common across the Pacific. They all tend to be fairly big, and for good reason.

Cheers,

Justin
 
VC-10
Posts: 3546
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 1999 11:34 am

RE: Boeing 747 Vs. Airbus 340

Sat Nov 18, 2000 4:28 pm

You can't change equipment just because on a particular day the load is light. Think about you, have to have a type qualified crew to bring it back, unless you delay the flight about 12 hrs for the outbound crew to have their min rest.
 
Guest

RE: Boeing 747 Vs. Airbus 340

Sat Nov 18, 2000 6:40 pm

In addition to VC-10 comment. It is quite likely that the return SQ flight was fully booked or near to full.
Last minute equipment changes are very diffcult for international carriers, for reasons stated before this.

Re A340 and 747. The A340 has a superior fuel burn per pax than the 747. The 747 is faster because it was designed to be, it has a higher sweep in it's wing to make this so. Because of this the 747 needs camparitivly stronger engines to get it off the ground within the length of a standard runway when fully laiden. The A340 has a less swept wing giving greater lift and hence requires less powerful engines to get it off the ground. Taken to extremes look at a twin otter, it can take off in my back yard with two lawn mower engines and you could drive faster. Doesn't make it a bad plane though.
The very things mentioned about the A340 as negatives here are exactly why airlines buy it in the first place. It does use less fuel ( seen the price of gas lately?) it makes a hell of a difference to an airline. More cargo space, sure the A340 can fly without a single pax, and still return a profit with a full belly of cargo.
Capacity problems? Aerolineas Argentinas used to fly the 747 to Sydney but rarely was it full, Now they use an A340 and they have many, but not all flights full. That's called economic sence.
At the moment the 747 is Ideal between LAX and SYD no question about it, and indeed on many other sectors as well. However the A340 also has it's place, the airlines know it, they bought it and use it. As to popularity the 747 is alone in it's niche and has at the present time no competition. The A340 has to compete with it's twin the A330 and Boeing's 777 and a few 767's as well depending on the spec required by each airline.

 
Aer Lingus
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sun May 14, 2000 4:06 am

RE: Boeing 747 Vs. Airbus 340

Sat Nov 18, 2000 9:07 pm

They do have Trans-Pacific A340 flights. Aerolineas Argentinas from Buenas Aires to Sydney is one example

Martin