Hi all

Before I get flamed here, don't shoot me I'm only a layman. My question is this: The B. 777-200 is roughly the same size as the A. 340.500 and the B. 777-300 is more or less in the same category as the A. 340-600 if I'm not completely wrong. In comparison, which model preforms better? I don't want to be converted one way or another here, I just want to know if anybody can give me an unbiased comparison of the aircraft's performance, such as which is more fuel efficient etc...

Thanks!

William

Hi William!

Quoting Knightsofmalta (Thread starter): Before I get flamed here, don't shoot me I'm only a layman. My question is this: The B. 777-200 is roughly the same size as the A. 340.500 and the B. 777-300 is more or less in the same category as the A. 340-600 if I'm not completely wrong. In comparison, which model preforms better? I don't want to be converted one way or another here, I just want to know if anybody can give me an unbiased comparison of the aircraft's performance, such as which is more fuel efficient etc...

Yes, you're right that the 772 is similar to the 345 in size, BUT you have to put in mind, that the 772 is available in THREE variants - where only the 772LR can compete with the 345. The 772A(medium range/short longhaul) and the 772ER (longhaul) are in another class than the 345. In matter of range.
The 773 is also availabl in two versions. The 773A more for the short/medium lonhaul and the 773ER is a concurrent for the 346.
For the comparison of economical features try a look at some newspapers. There were a lot of articles in the last few months, regarding the "problems airbus has with its FOUR-ENGINED 340-family during the season of HIGH fuel prices".
Also the orders for the 340 and the 777 in the last two years show you also a not-to-be overseen fact!

GreetZ,
Jan

PS: Try a little search in this forum, there a tons of similar threads.

To resume, the T7 is a more economical aircraft and as JMO-777 said, the season of HIGH fuel prices brings the preference to the T7, from the investor's point of view, the 773ER is the best option...though none of the above is my opinion, simply economics.

Quoting Dambuster (Reply 2): To resume, the T7 is a more economical aircraft and as JMO-777 said, the season of HIGH fuel prices brings the preference to the T7, from the investor's point of view, the 773ER is the best option...though none of the above is my opinion, simply economics.

how about carrying cargo? Is the B77W able to carry more cargo and pax than the A346?

Quoting VHVXB (Reply 3): how about carrying cargo? Is the B77W able to carry more cargo and pax than the A346?

Yes, the B-777-300ER can carry more cargo, further, than the A-340-600. Both carry about the same number of passengers, and as already said, the B-777 burns about 2/3 the fuel of the A-340.

The same is true for the B-777-200LR vs. the A-340-500.

There is one major difference where the A-340 has an advantage over the B-777. All A-340s can fly great circle (the shortest route), any where, at any time. This may (or may not) shorten the distance between almost any city pairs in the world. The B-777 can only fly great on some missions. But, on most missions, it must fly ETOPS, because it is a twin. IIRC, all B-777-200LRs are certified to 240 minutes ETOPS, and some airlines will get certified to 330 minutes, which is getting closeer to great circle routing.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4): There is one major difference where the A-340 has an advantage over the B-777. All A-340s can fly great circle (the shortest route), any where, at any time. This may (or may not) shorten the distance between almost any city pairs in the world. The B-777 can only fly great on some missions. But, on most missions, it must fly ETOPS, because it is a twin. IIRC, all B-777-200LRs are certified to 240 minutes ETOPS, and some airlines will get certified to 330 minutes, which is getting closeer to great circle routing.

Oh I see, I suppose that explains why airlines like AF, TG or EK operate both A. 340s and B. 777.

Just another thing. If I understand rightly, another advantage of the A. 340 is the commonality of it's cockpit and systems with other Airbus types. Does this really save the airlines operating various Airbus types so much money in training that they can afford to spend a third more on fuel than they would with a B.777?

Quoting VHVXB (Reply 3): Is the B77W able to carry more cargo and pax than the A346?

The higher gross weight versions of the A346 can actually carry a marginally larger payload than the 77W can.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4): Both carry about the same number of passengers,

That depends on the interior configuration, and the 77W has the largest cabin area.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4): the B-777 burns about 2/3 the fuel of the A-340.

The 77W burns about 5-9% less fuel than the A346 on longer sectors, while that figure goes up to almost 20% for the 77L vs. A345 on sectors close to ~8800nm.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4): There is one major difference where the A-340 has an advantage over the B-777. All A-340s can fly great circle (the shortest route), any where, at any time

But the A340 cruises at a lower speed, and may use more time to get to the destination even if if flies the shortest path, and the shortest path may not be the quickest due to unfavourable winds. Also, ETOPS isn't a problem on that many out of the longer range routes, except from over the North Pole, parts of the Pacific and the southern Atlantic and Indian Ocean.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4): all B-777-200LRs are certified to 240 minutes ETOPS

Are you sure about that? I believe they are certified for ETOPS 180, like the rest of the 777s...

Quoting Knightsofmalta (Thread starter): In comparison, which model preforms better?

The 777 models perform better due to a lower fuel burn, and the maintenance costs are lower on them. They do also have a better dispatch reliability than the A340NGs.

Quoting Brendows (Reply 6): ETOPS isn't a problem on that many out of the longer range routes, except from over the North Pole, parts of the Pacific and the southern Atlantic and Indian Ocean.

ETOPS isn't a problem over the North Pole, but the rest is correct if you throw in the far South Pacific and the South Pole.

What ever came of Etops 330?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4): the B-777 burns about 2/3 the fuel of the A-340.

wbp's previous tables show for a 6000nm flight a 77W burns 39303 USG carrying 123600lb payload, a A346 41344 USG and 117946lb. Even if you make the payload difference up in extra fuel for the A346 its only a 6% difference. Where on earth do you get 30% differences???

Quoting Brendows (Reply 6): But the A340 cruises at a lower speed, and may use more time to get to the destination even if if flies the shortest path

It's true 340's cruises at a lower speed, but the difference is marginally lower.

Quoting Brendows (Reply 6): and the shortest path may not be the quickest due to unfavourable winds.

So what? Due to the same argument the alternative (and longer) airway for the 777's could be, also, under "unfavourable" winds.

Quoting Brendows (Reply 6): The 77W burns about 5-9% less fuel than the A346 on longer sectors

Actually it's daring to give un percentage about how the T7 burns less fuel. It's always a rough estimate. And a T7 is more expensive than its european competition.

Quoting Brendows (Reply 6): Are you sure about that? I believe they are certified for ETOPS 180, like the rest of the 777s...

FAA is allowing up to 207' ETOPS (180 + 15%)

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 7): ETOPS isn't a problem over the North Pole

What happened with the LROPS regulation?

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 7): but the rest is correct if you throw in the far South Pacific and the South Pole.

And the Indian Ocean as well. ETOPS is an important issue in Intercontinental ops. within Southern Hemisphere.

Simply put... the higher costs of acquiring the 777's have to be made up by the savings on fuel. As the price of fuel softens this margin is harder to make up... making the A340's more competitive and puts more price pressure on Boeing 777's.

As discussed in this thread about th A340NGs and 777's, how does the A340-300 and A330-300 compare with the 772ER? I remember a chart form WBP, but Ican't find it now.

Quoting Aerohottie (Reply 11): Simply put... the higher costs of acquiring the 777s have to be made up by the savings on fuel.

What about maintenance and dispatch reliability?

Fuel burn is not the only thing that makes up for the additional cost.

In doing a search, there is a lot of information available. It is more fun to get discussions going about it. No matter how many facts you come up with, people will always have their favorite.

http://www.askcaptainlim.com/asB777vsA340issues.htm

http://www.geocities.com/khlim777_my/asetops.htm

http://www.answers.com/topic/boeing-777 (chart towards to bottom of the page)

This one is neat. http://www.meriweather.com/flightdeck.html

http://www.fodors.com/forums/threadselect.jsp?fid=126&tid=34608939

M

Quoting SKY1 (Reply 10): It's true 340's cruises at a lower speed, but the difference is marginally lower.

It is, but still, it is about ~15 minutes on a 6000nm flight, and you'll cover some distance in that time.

Quoting SKY1 (Reply 10): So what? Due to the same argument the alternative (and longer) airway for the 777's could be, also, under "unfavourable" winds.

What I tried to say was that a route following the great circle might not be the optimal route, depending on weather conditions, sorry for expressing my self so poorly.

Quoting SKY1 (Reply 10): Actually it's daring to give un percentage about how the T7 burns less fuel. It's always a rough estimate.

Yes, it's a rough estimate, that's why I wrote "on longer sectors" and not a more precise figure, since the difference in fuel burn depends on several factors.

Quoting SKY1 (Reply 10): And a T7 is more expensive than its european competition.

Yes, the list price is, but that didn't stop some A340NG carriers to order the 77W/77L last year...

Quoting SKY1 (Reply 10): FAA is allowing up to 207' ETOPS (180 + 15%)

Yes, FAA does that, IIRC to some carriers on certain routes. My point was that ETOPS 180 is the normal ETOPS regulation for the 777s.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4): Yes, the B-777-300ER can carry more cargo, further, than the A-340-600. Both carry about the same number of passengers, and as already said, the B-777 burns about 2/3 the fuel of the A-340.

2/3 is optimistic. Carrying the same number of pax, 77W if offering more room per seat than A346. Plus, 77W can be configured for 10 abreast Y, which offers many more seats.

Quoting Brendows (Reply 6): But the A340 cruises at a lower speed, and may use more time to get to the destination even if if flies the shortest path, and the shortest path may not be the quickest due to unfavourable winds. Also, ETOPS isn't a problem on that many out of the longer range routes, except from over the North Pole, parts of the Pacific and the southern Atlantic and Indian Ocean.

There are a hand full of routes on earth that ETOPS causes a plane to have to fly around ETOPS dead spots.

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 9): wbp's previous tables show for a 6000nm flight a 77W burns 39303 USG carrying 123600lb payload, a A346 41344 USG and 117946lb. Even if you make the payload difference up in extra fuel for the A346 its only a 6% difference. Where on earth do you get 30% differences???

Airlines are not passing over the A346 left and right for the 77W for 6%. There is a reason even traditionally airbus airlines are buying 77W. It's well better than six percent on the whole.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 14): Airlines are not passing over the A346 left and right for the 77W for 6%. There is a reason even traditionally airbus airlines are buying 77W. It's well better than six percent on the whole.

don't shoot the messenger, if you have better figures than wbp's to illustrate your point, cough them up for everyone here.
wbps figures show 6% better fuel burn and 5% better payload for a comparable length flight. that certainly would be enough difference for many airlines to pick the 77W when most of the airline industry can barely break even these days.

Quoting Aerohottie (Reply 11): Simply put... the higher costs of acquiring the 777's have to be made up by the savings on fuel. As the price of fuel softens this margin is harder to make up... making the A340's more competitive and puts more price pressure on Boeing 777's.

Not hardly, you're being way to simplistic. Consider several points:

1) Market timing. LH is one of the last major airlines evaluating the 773ER and A346. Just 12-18 months ago, there were numerous airlines considering both aircraft. In that time, SQ, AC, AI, EK, CX, QR, 9W, all placed major Boeing orders committing them to 777.

Regardless of fuel price, those "doors" are essentially closed to Airbus forever.

2) The A346 is still the A346. Airbus has done nothing to improve the performance of the A346, and the Enhanced variant is dead and almost out of memory.

The 773ER turned the orders battle on Airbus even before fuel prices jumped, so what should change now? The fact is, Airbus must resort to competitive bidding (and perhaps even compensation payments) to hold existing A346 customers.

3. The 777 has advantages beyond just lower fuel burn. The 777LR variants are "fuel limited" not "weight limited" aircraft like the A340 variants, allowing greater flexibility in revenue cargo. Key word being: revenue.

The 777 has shown historically lower rates of diversions and higher dispatch reliability than the A340, which directly impact an airline's bottom line.

4. Boeing no longer imposes outrageous premiums. The Boeing of 2006 functions with a totally different sales team than just 2-3 years ago. Boeing is not afraid to discount

And for good reason: the 777LR program cost about 1/3 what it took Airbus to develop the A345/A46, and yet Boeing has sold twice as many aircraft. Greater return on investment allows for discount leverage and/or higher yields.

Plus, Boeing implemented production line enhancements which have lowered unit cost. This gives Boeing more discount leverage and/or higher yields.

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 15): don't shoot the messenger, if you have better figures than wbp's to illustrate your point, cough them up for everyone here. wbps figures show 6% better fuel burn and 5% better payload for a comparable length flight. that certainly would be enough difference for many airlines to pick the 77W when most of the airline industry can barely break even these days.

Point being this, when an airline that already operates A330s and A340s passes over A346 for 773ER, that means they no longer have commonality for mx or pilot training. That's expensive, so the 773ER performance has to significantly better so much as to offset the cost of adding a new type, that's all I'm saying. I'm sure your figures are accurate, I'm just saying, other routes will have other figures, and there is more to the equation.

The 777 is usually a better performing aircraft, and is usually the better choice for airlines, although there are a few points against it, depending on the needs of the airline... and hardly anyone would argue that the A340 is a better performer than the B777.. however, from my personal pax stand point.. I would fly a A340 any day over the B777... too bad airlines don't choose for their pax comfort, but what makes more money to them.... Anyways.... I hope the A340 has some life left in it, for the silence of the A340 doesn't compare to any twin out there, no matter how good the T7 is.....

I'd like to commend most of you for the respectful nature of this thread. You have compared notes, sometimes disagreed, and yet not become belligerent or sarcastic as we so often see with this type of comparison. Bravo.

Meanwhile, can someone explain to me why the 777 has been significantly more expensive than the 340 (even though Boeing may now be discounting)? Because I understand that engines make up a large percentage of the price of an A/C. - so with the 340 being a 4 engine A/C, the higher price for a comparable 777 seems, at first glance, counter-intuitive.

Is it because of limited supply and high demand that Boeing has been able to jack up the price of the 777? Or does Airbus give large discounts for the 340, supported by their highly successful 330, which comes off of the same production line?

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 16): 4. Boeing no longer imposes outrageous premiums. ... Plus, Boeing implemented production line enhancements which have lowered unit cost. This gives Boeing more discount leverage and/or higher yields.

Interesting points. It used to be said that Airbus had a more efficient production system that could produce the planes for less. But since then, the monetary exchange rate has changed in Boeing's favor, and they have been trying to drive their costs down.

But what I have been wondering is if the 777's higher price has been in part due to the substantial budget overrun in developing it in the first place. I imagine they might have been holding out for higher prices in order to get a satisfactory IRR.

Quoting Atnight (Reply 18): from my personal pax stand point.. I would fly a A340 any day over the B777... too bad airlines don't choose for their pax comfort,

I don't understand this statement. The 340 has narrower seats than the 777, and its curved sidewalls prevent me from sitting up straight in a window seat. To me, the 340 is a burnt pancake.

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 20): I don't understand this statement. The 340 has narrower seats than the 777, and its curved sidewalls prevent me from sitting up straight in a window seat. To me, the 340 is a burnt pancake.

Sir, you must be quite tall (or wide) to not be able to sit straight in a window seat of the A340.... and is a matter of personal opinion.... since you think the A340 is that bad, don't fly on it.... I don't mind flying the B777, but I prefer the A340, and I was noting that the best thing that the A340 has over the B777 is the quietness... the B777 is very loud, and overnight flights is not the type of plane I can sleep on.... many folks I've talked to have preferred the A340 over the B777 just on that fact..... also, the Y configuration of the B777 is usually 2-5-2 or 3-3-3, which both are not as comfortable as a 2-4-2 usual A340 configuration... (but configurations and layouts change from airline to airline, so is really up to what airline you fly on that makes the difference in that sense).... Anyways, you take the T7 and avoid the A340, I on the other hand don't mind taking the T7 but I wish would get on the A340....

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):

Quoting Brendows (Reply 6): The higher gross weight versions of the A346 can actually carry a marginally larger payload than the 77W can.

thanks for the info

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 16): Enhanced variant is dead and almost out of memory.

So no airline has placed an order for the HGW version?

Quoting VHVXB (Reply 22): So no airline has placed an order for the HGW version?

DfwRevolution was referring to the A346E that Airbus were talking about for a while as an alternative for EK (which said that they didn't want the A346HGW they had on order,) and that version is definitively dead. This version included the Trent 1700, and many of the improvements the A350 would get.
All A346s and A345s that is produced now are of the HGW version, and airlines like LH, QR, VS and TG will receive HGW versions of the A340NG.

Quoting VHVXB (Reply 22): thanks for the info

You're welcome  

Quoting Atnight (Reply 21): but I prefer the A340, and I was noting that the best thing that the A340 has over the B777 is the quietness... the B777 is very loud,

How true, i can only second that. With exception of the A320 family i would dare to say Airbus planes are generally quieter.

Wondering, now how quiet the A380 inflight is 

looking at JP fleets, it seems all the A346HGW operators are still using Trent 556s despite the higher TO weight, is this a mistake or are these 556s capable of some thrust bump feature (some are shown in JP as 556A2-61), do these planes need an awful lot more runway?? has A managed to turn the A346s field performance back into a A343s by adding almost 10 tons without commensurate higher thrust??

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 17): I'm just saying, other routes will have other figures, and there is more to the equation.

totally agree, I just couldn't fathom how OAG came up with a 33% fuel burn difference. I think the mx and crew commonality issues also become non issues when you are getting a large fleet. if you are a smaller airline and only interested in a handful of planes then these issues may outweigh the lower operating costs of the 777 but if you are getting a dozen or more planes , and or already operate 777s, these issues are far less important even if you also have A330/40s already.

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 25): totally agree, I just couldn't fathom how OAG came up with a 33% fuel burn difference.

It wasn't me who said 33%. My value is around 20% fuel burn per passenger advantage to the 773ER based on equivalent seating arrangements.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 26): It wasn't me who said 33%. My value is around 20% fuel burn per passenger advantage to the 773ER based on equivalent seating arrangements.

mea culpa! sorry it was KC135.

Quoting Atnight (Reply 21): Sir, you must be quite tall (or wide) to not be able to sit straight in a window seat of the A340

You are correct: I am tall. As for width, I fit into a 737 or 340 seat with no problem (except for the curved sidewall), although I think the extra width of a 320 or 777 seat is nice to have.

Edit: Come to think of it, what I wrote about fitting into the seat pertains more to my size below the waist. But I probably do have wider shoulders than average, and that's where the interference is. I can ride in an A340, just not in the window seat, which is where I prefer to ride in other airliners. End edit.

I recently flew in a 330 behind the wing, not in a window seat, and didn't find it noticeably quieter than the 777 -- until the pilot throttled back for descent. Then it was marvelously quiet. I gather that the 330/340 probably generates less airframe noise. I suppose the CFMs on the 343 are a big contributor to its quietness. Are the 345/346 also as quiet?

[Edited 2006-11-20 10:10:30]

Quoting Atnight (Reply 18): I would fly a A340 any day over the B777... too bad airlines don't choose for their pax comfort, but what makes more money to them

For the most part, comfort (interior configueration) is mostly the responsibility of the airline.

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 25): I just couldn't fathom how OAG came up with a 33% fuel burn difference. I

It was me, I got the figuer from an AA B-777-200ER pilot here at DFW.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29): For the most part, comfort (interior configueration) is mostly the responsibility of the airline.

Well, had you read my whole post, you wouldn't tell me that, since I already said the EXACT same thing:

Quoting Atnight (Reply 21): (but configurations and layouts change from airline to airline, so is really up to what airline you fly on that makes the difference in that sense)....

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 28): I recently flew in a 330 behind the wing, not in a window seat, and didn't find it noticeably quieter than the 777 -- until the pilot throttled back for descent.

Well sir, as you know, the A330/A340 share same fuselage, but the A330 isn't that much quieter than the T7, however is the quad engine A340 that is the most silent aircraft (cabin wise) in the sky, and that's the one I was referring to as my favorite long-haul.... But if you find it uncomfortable due to you height, I can understand not being the type you would enjoy.... again, it's all a matter of personal opinion.... I just love the quietness of flying on a A340...

Quoting JMO-777 (Reply 1): PS: Try a little search in this forum, there a tons of similar threads.

But not biased ones will not be many...

Quoting Atnight (Reply 30): I just love the quietness of flying on a A340

Come to think of it, while riding in that A330, I listened to the noise and concluded that it must have less noise coming from the air conditioning outlets. I hope Boeing pays attention to that with the 787.

A serious question here, without bias to either side (hopefully people will respond accordingly):

Is there any increased risk in running a dual engine aircraft as opposed to quad when it comes to a catastrophic engine failure in flight, especially on approach or take-off? Just wondering if a 777 lost an engine, it would basically lose 50% of its thrust right? And if an A340 lost an engine, that's only 25%? I mean, I know the situation is potentially unlikely but if it were to happen, would it be harder to fly the 777 with half the thrust and the slew that would need to be offset with a lot of rudder? It would appear the 340 might have *some* advantage here... Or maybe not?

Quoting Irobertson (Reply 33): Is there any increased risk in running a dual engine aircraft as opposed to quad when it comes to a catastrophic engine failure in flight, especially on approach or take-off? Just wondering if a 777 lost an engine, it would basically lose 50% of its thrust right? And if an A340 lost an engine, that's only 25%? I mean, I know the situation is potentially unlikely but if it were to happen, would it be harder to fly the 777 with half the thrust and the slew that would need to be offset with a lot of rudder? It would appear the 340 might have *some* advantage here... Or maybe not?

http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/n19.htm

Then again, there is also UAs Sioux City crash with a 3 engine plane. I know you are talking the 4 engines planes, engines and not hydraulic systems, but this one came to mind.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X28786&key=1

The BA incident where the 747 ingested volcanic ash also came to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_009

Maybe this will shed a little light on it.

There is an article about United flying 192 minutes with one engine out and about somewhere that I cannot find right now.

M

Quoting Irobertson (Reply 33): Is there any increased risk in running a dual engine aircraft as opposed to quad when it comes to a catastrophic engine failure in flight

I am not an expert on this, but improvements in engine reliability have made the advent of a twin long range jet a safe and viable reality, and quite recently.

I recall that Boeing's venture with the 777 was considered risky 20 years ago, when they weren't sure whether engines would be reliable enough or whether the certifying agencies would allow ETOPS (Extended Twin-engine operations).

Some airlines, notably Virgin, have long hung on to the idea of 4 engined long distance travel being more prudent, and even fashioned their marketing as such, but the reliability of modern technology is changing the minds of most nay-sayers.

Basically, modern A/C engines are much less likely to fail than a generation ago. Depending on the specs of the A/C, they can be rated with a 180 or 240 ETOPS rating (if I have my numbers right), which means they may fly as far as 240 minutes from their first opportunity to land in the event of a mechanical problem, especially an engine failure. I believe there is also a 330 ETOPS rating or there will be one soon. Again, I am not an expert but I enjoy the subject.

Twin engined A/C have to meet rigid performance requirements regarding engine failure at take off. They have to be able to continue to climb and fly in a controlled and predictable manner while fully loaded, with their remaining engine at full power, so they can return safely for landing.

It's true that, in general, 4 engined A/C have better climb statistics with a single engine failure, and they are not restricted to any operational ETOPS limitations, so they can fly as long and far as they are able over isolated terrain or water without needing an enroute alternate landing site.

It's interesting to note, though, that since 4-engined A/C have twice the likelihood of an engine failure, statistically, or twice the likelihood of an engine going "tech" on the ground, that 4-engined A/C are actually more likely to encounter delays or diversions due to engine problems than twins. Ironic.

Quoting ChiGB1973 (Reply 34): The BA incident where the 747 ingested volcanic ash also came to mind.

A similar thing happened to a KLM 747 over Alaska; ash from "Mt. Redoubt."

http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/A...temid=1470&ModuleId=1316&Tabid=256

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 32): Come to think of it, while riding in that A330, I listened to the noise and concluded that it must have less noise coming from the air conditioning outlets. I hope Boeing pays attention to that with the 787.

Boeing actually researched noise level for the 787 and the avg. most pax didn't want a large reduction in noise because an aircraft would start sounding like an over packed restaurant with 400 guests. A great deal of noise is the ventilation system in these newer acft.

White noise is better that people noise, think itt through..

I have always been and will be a Boeing fan, on the subject of noise, however, they have a lot to learn.

In the 757 cockpit in particular, the noise from the ventilation airflow and the accompanying cold draft is quite obnoxious.Most of us have found inventive ways to deflect the airflow away from us, but that is ridiculous when you think about it.

I don't really know what the designers were thinking, in most other respects it is a fine aircraft, perhaps no one told them that noise and drafts are a huge contributor to pilot fatigue.

After 9-10 hours in a 767 I felt tired, 7-8 hours in a 757 is exhausting.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 36): White noise is better that people noise, think itt through..

I don't care for either. I take foam ear plugs along on long flights on which I will need to sleep, because the people noise is irritating even over the aircraft noise.

One day at the place where I worked, the electronic system for generating artificial noise in the ceiling broke down, and it became much quieter. I liked it better, even though it allowed the people noise to be more relatively significant.

I find the white noise really irritating personally. Makes me agitated and I can never hear properly after I get off. I'll take less noise myself.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 35): It's true that, in general, 4 engined A/C have better climb statistics with a single engine failure, and they are not restricted to any operational ETOPS limitations, so they can fly as long and far as they are able over isolated terrain or water without needing an enroute alternate landing site.

The problem nowadays isn't engine reliability, what matters is how far you're of an airport in case of an onboard fire or when you have a passenger that needs medical treatment. I've no doubt a flight between SCL and AKL on a LA 340 is technically incredibly safe, but what in the case of an event mid-way; you're in the hands of the LA crew for hours and hours to come.

Two more things to consider:

- The A346 is able to fly the L888 airway, which is north of the Himalya mountains. This airway makes the trip from europe towards the southern part of china shorter (~1-2h). That saves a lot of money....

- You don't have to wait that long to get an A346 compared to the 777. So you can start earning money earlier...

Quoting BillReid (Reply 36): Boeing actually researched noise level for the 787 and the avg. most pax didn't want a large reduction in noise because an aircraft would start sounding like an over packed restaurant with 400 guests. A great deal of noise is the ventilation system in these newer acft. White noise is better that people noise, think itt through..

I have my doubts that they would be able to reduce engine/ventilation noise to that level. However, people who insist on having extended conversations on long flights filled with people who are all from different time zones and are trying to rest/sleep are incredibly ignorant and rude.

What I fear most is the plan to enable cell phone use while in flight. That means everyone one board will be able to talk to anyone in the world. That will be a DISASTER - unless airlines begin a policy of:

"'Cell phone?' or 'Non?'"

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 38): I take foam ear plugs along on long flights on which I will need to sleep, because the people noise is irritating even over the aircraft noise.

I ALWAYS wear earplugs, even if I am reading or working. 'Much more relaxing to me.

Quoting Michi (Reply 41): Two more things to consider: - The A346 is able to fly the L888 airway, which is north of the Himalya mountains. This airway makes the trip from europe towards the southern part of china shorter (~1-2h). That saves a lot of money....

Plus more satisfied customers, I would imagine. I know there are a few other dead spots on the globe where ETOPS A/C don't fly. Are any of them as travelled/important as L888?

Quoting Michi (Reply 41): - You don't have to wait that long to get an A346 compared to the 777. So you can start earning money earlier...

Good Points

(Sorry - posted twice due to computer/internet glitch. This is the remnants of the repeated post. Don't know how to deleat it completely)

[Edited 2006-11-21 15:47:00]

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 42): I ALWAYS wear earplugs, even if I am reading or working. 'Much more relaxing to me.

I wear earplugs or my noise cancellation Solitude headphones. I don't understand how one can fly longhaul without.  Seriously, earplugs are like $0.30 for a pair and make a huge difference in terms of fatigue.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 44): I wear earplugs or my noise cancellation Solitude headphones. I don't understand how one can fly longhaul without.  Seriously, earplugs are like $0.30 for a pair and make a huge difference in terms of fatigue.

Errr - I make mine out of toilet paper..... costs nothing. I can show you how if you want, but PLEASE don't tell anybody....  

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 45): Errr - I make mine out of toilet paper..... costs nothing. I can show you how if you want, but PLEASE don't tell anybody....

What kind of toilet paper? Charmin? 

I double-checked and you can get earplugs for about $0.12 a pair. I think that may be approaching toilet paper lol.