It's pretty clear that the 77W is a far more superior airplane to the A340-600 even tho it was launched only 2 years later. 800+ 77W produced and it's the most common wide body variant flying in the skies compared to 346 with <100 produced and very rarely 10 flying at once which is an insane difference between similar aircraft of the same generation. I've even read about Airbus studying A346E with new engines just 4 years after the 1st 346 delivery so looks like even they knew they were in trouble.

The question here now is why was there such a big gap between these 2 planes in the first place even tho the previous A340 variants were very good airplanes compared with their rivals? The only reasons I could think of were either due to the limitations of being derived from the A300 fuselage, Airbus just not putting enough effort in development of the 346 or upgrades that Boeing had for 777NG proving too much for Airbus but there could be a completely different reason too.

I think a range of things. The per seat efficiency difference was too much to ignore especially when the 77W went 10 abreast and the 340-600 remained at 8. But it could almost match the seat count but it was longer and heavier and then add the fact that it had 4 engines.

I don’t think the 343 and 772 difference in economy was THAT much. But for the 77W it was too much

I might be wrong but that’s what I think

The A343 is competitive when it comes to fuel burn against the 77E (slightly better in fact, although generally with lower payloads).

The A346, quite simply, is not competitive in fuel burn against the 77W (seen figures around %10 worse…remember these are two contemporary jets of the same generation). This is due to the worse engines and heavier airframe.

The 777-300ER improvements were significant. Both by engines and aerodynamics. The A340-600 was a stretch too far needed as a fast and dirty interim solution with some inferior wing still mostly based on the A340-300.
It's interesting to see how this duel will turn out between A350 and 777X now?

Umm I think the 200ER sold in far greater numbers than the A343.

Noshow wrote:

The A340-600 was a stretch too far needed as a fast and dirty interim solution with some inferior wing still mostly based on the A340-300.

The A340-600 was not a fast and dirty interim solution. It was launched (and entered service) before the 77W. Not helping matters is the A346 turned out heavier than expected (its wings in particular was an issue with early builds) while the 77W actually entered service better than what Boeing was promising. Initial expectations/projections when the A346 and 77W were both in development had the planes far closer in performance.

And while the A346 wing is still mostly based on the A343’s wing, the 77W’s wing is still mostly based on the 77E’s wing. The only major changes are the added raked wingtip and internal changes to support the higher MTOW.

There are many aerodynamic detail modifications that significantly improve the performance of the 777-300ER.

Engines. The GE90-115B was a big success and tailor-made for the 777W, the Trent 500 not so much. If Airbus would have gone for the proposed PW GTF or GE would have decided to offer the proposed scaled down GE90, it would have been less one sided. But a quad with inferior engines, has not much chance.

Would be fascinating to think of what some Twin-A340-600 with just two GE-90-115 on the inner engine positions could have been?

The 346 took an inordinate amount of time to develop given that it should have been a relatively simple stretch and re-engine (Boeing seems to be having a similar experience today with the 777X). Had the 346's time to market been reduced, it would have had a head start over the 77W and sold a lot more even though the 77W would still have been a lot better. Around the time that Airbus started developing the 346, Boeing was toying with concepts such as using the APU in flight to provide the necessary take off power for a stretched 777 - GE produced its solution soon after.


Also Airbus got spooked by the 77W specs for range and launched a heavier HGW version with increased range soon after the base version. Then made the HGW the only available version, which left it handicapped by the additional weight where airlines did not need the additional range.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

The 346 took an inordinate amount of time to develop given that it should have been a relatively simple stretch and re-engine (Boeing seems to be having a similar experience today with the 777X). Had the 346's time to market been reduced, it would have had a head start over the 77W and sold a lot more even though the 77W would still have been a lot better.

The A340-600 was launched in December 1997 and first flew in April 2001 with EIS in late summer 2002 . That is not an inordinate amount of time for development at all. For comparison the 77W was officially launched in Feb 2000, first flew in Feb 2003, and EIS spring 2004.

MileHFL400 wrote:

Umm I think the 200ER sold in far greater numbers than the A343.

Market leader vs. newcomer in the long haul market. Its not always the better plane that has the higher market share. Boeing sold more 737classic than Airbus A320s, and which is the better aircraft isn´t even a question, given that more or less eye2eye level competition was between the NG and the A320.

Between the A346 and the 77W, when Airbus was established, Boeing simply had the better aircraft for by far most airlines.

best regards
Thomas

MileHFL400 wrote:

Umm I think the 200ER sold in far greater numbers than the A343.

That would be 422, B777-200ER's vs 218, A340-300's,,,,, So Slightly more than Double for the B777-200ER.

Boeing757rb211 wrote:

MileHFL400 wrote:

Umm I think the 200ER sold in far greater numbers than the A343.

That would be 422, B777-200ER's vs 218, A340-300's,,,,, So Slightly more than Double for the B777-200ER.

Not an apples to apples comparison because there is overlap between the 77E and the A330, particularly the earlier generations of the 772.

seahawk wrote:

Engines. The GE90-115B was a big success and tailor-made for the 777W, the Trent 500 not so much. If Airbus would have gone for the proposed PW GTF or GE would have decided to offer the proposed scaled down GE90, it would have been less one sided. But a quad with inferior engines, has not much chance.

GE engines also performed above expectations - that widened the gap with the A346 even more...

luckyone wrote:

Boeing757rb211 wrote:

MileHFL400 wrote:

Umm I think the 200ER sold in far greater numbers than the A343.

That would be 422, B777-200ER's vs 218, A340-300's,,,,, So Slightly more than Double for the B777-200ER.

Not an apples to apples comparison because there is overlap between the 77E and the A330, particularly the earlier generations of the 772.

the 422 is Specifically for the 777-200ER ONLY and the 218 is also ONLY for the A340-300 so wouldn't that be an EXACT comparison ? Because the Original poster i was replying to stated something like "Im pretty sure the 777-200ER sold Vastly more than the A340-300,,, Which those are the Exact numbers for, Specific to Those 2 Models Only.

ETOPS got widely approved and operationally used right when the 777-300ER arrived on the market. It's reliable engines made transpacific twin ops routine. With all the cost advantages. Plus it had a lot of cargo volume while some A340-600 had belly installations like lavatories, main galley, main crew rest and stairhouses wasting precious cargo space.

There's a tradition in these threads that someone has to say, "Yes, but from a passenger perspective the A340 is far nicer to fly on than the 777".

There. I said it.

They were different generation aircraft. Those 3 years between the A340 launch and the 777 launch made a world of difference, that's why one has 4 engines and the other has 2 engines. The subsequent variants (-600 for A and -300 for B) were defined by the platform that they were built on.
While the A340 program came first, the A346 was a reaction to the 777-300 (and the A340-600HGW a reaction to the 77W). Having said that, there was a very brief period between 2002 and 2004 when the A346 was the best there was. For example, CX bought the A346 because it was the only plane that could fly non-stop between HKG and JFK in both directions, in the Winter and carry a lot of cargo in the process.
This was the order for entry into service:
777-300 1998
A340-600 2002
777-300ER 2004
A340-600HGW 2006?

tommy1808 wrote:

MileHFL400 wrote:

Umm I think the 200ER sold in far greater numbers than the A343.

Market leader vs. newcomer in the long haul market. Its not always the better plane that has the higher market share. Boeing sold more 737classic than Airbus A320s, and which is the better aircraft isn´t even a question, given that more or less eye2eye level competition was between the NG and the A320.

Between the A346 and the 77W, when Airbus was established, Boeing simply had the better aircraft for by far most airlines.

best regards
Thomas

You cannot directly compare the 737classic and the A320. The A320 was more of a 727 replacement, and the 737 was considerably smaller then. Only the 737NG made the 737 larger, but a 737NG uses more fuel than the 737classic, despite being newer - simply because it is larger.

Obviously, while Airbus already existed since the 1970s, even in the middle of the 1990s, Airbus was still considerably smaller than Boeing. This only changed slowly, but Airbus was not a full competitor yet in the middle of the 1990s. Especially for large long range planes, Boeing had more experience.

Boeing757rb211 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Boeing757rb211 wrote:

That would be 422, B777-200ER's vs 218, A340-300's,,,,, So Slightly more than Double for the B777-200ER.

Not an apples to apples comparison because there is overlap between the 77E and the A330, particularly the earlier generations of the 772.

the 422 is Specifically for the 777-200ER ONLY and the 218 is also ONLY for the A340-300 so wouldn't that be an EXACT comparison ? Because the Original poster i was replying to stated something like "Im pretty sure the 777-200ER sold Vastly more than the A340-300,,, Which those are the Exact numbers for, Specific to Those 2 Models Only.

No it wouldn't be an exact because again, there is overlap and not a reflection of actual markets to just compare those two.

4 - 2 = Winner

TheSonntag wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

MileHFL400 wrote:

Umm I think the 200ER sold in far greater numbers than the A343.

Market leader vs. newcomer in the long haul market. Its not always the better plane that has the higher market share. Boeing sold more 737classic than Airbus A320s, and which is the better aircraft isn´t even a question, given that more or less eye2eye level competition was between the NG and the A320.

Between the A346 and the 77W, when Airbus was established, Boeing simply had the better aircraft for by far most airlines.

best regards
Thomas

You cannot directly compare the 737classic and the A320. The A320 was more of a 727 replacement, and the 737 was considerably smaller then. Only the 737NG made the 737 larger, but a 737NG uses more fuel than the 737classic, despite being newer - simply because it is larger.

Obviously, while Airbus already existed since the 1970s, even in the middle of the 1990s, Airbus was still considerably smaller than Boeing. This only changed slowly, but Airbus was not a full competitor yet in the middle of the 1990s. Especially for large long range planes, Boeing had more experience.

Did Cx buy them or just leased them waiting for the 777W?

The A340-600 is simply too heavy. It became too heavy with its various upgrades for increased capacity and payload.

The A346 OEW is 33% higher than the A343 while the airplane is 18% longer.

The 777-300ER is only 21% heavier than the 777-200ER while being 16% longer.

blandy62 wrote:

TheSonntag wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Market leader vs. newcomer in the long haul market. Its not always the better plane that has the higher market share. Boeing sold more 737classic than Airbus A320s, and which is the better aircraft isn´t even a question, given that more or less eye2eye level competition was between the NG and the A320.

Between the A346 and the 77W, when Airbus was established, Boeing simply had the better aircraft for by far most airlines.

best regards
Thomas

You cannot directly compare the 737classic and the A320. The A320 was more of a 727 replacement, and the 737 was considerably smaller then. Only the 737NG made the 737 larger, but a 737NG uses more fuel than the 737classic, despite being newer - simply because it is larger.

Obviously, while Airbus already existed since the 1970s, even in the middle of the 1990s, Airbus was still considerably smaller than Boeing. This only changed slowly, but Airbus was not a full competitor yet in the middle of the 1990s. Especially for large long range planes, Boeing had more experience.

Did Cx buy them or just leased them waiting for the 777W?

They were leases, but not because CX was waiting for the 77W. They wanted aircraft that could operate HKG-NYC nonstop ASAP (Cathay was the second operator after VS). After delivery CX had a competition to either expand the A346 fleet by purchasing more or purchase the 77W instead. The 77W obviously won and the 3 A346s were returned when the leases ended.

I would not say the 343 did quite well against the 772. A340-300 entered service in 1993 and 777-200 in 1995. However, the 1995 version of 772 is the "A" model. It was designed to fly medium range routes, not long range routes. The competitor of 772A model is really the A330-300, not A340-300.

The real competitor of A343 is the 772ER, which came online in 1997. There is a 4 year gap between the first delivery of A343 vs B772ER. After 772ER came online, orders for A343 was significantly impacted. But by then, there were many A343 ordered and delivered already. Airbus essentially got a head-start of 4 years in the market. For A346 vs. 773ER, Airbus no longer had that head-start.

raylee67 wrote:

I would not say the 343 did quite well against the 772. A340-300 entered service in 1993 and 777-200 in 1995. However, the 1995 version of 772 is the "A" model. It was designed to fly medium range routes, not long range routes. The competitor of 772A model is really the A330-300, not A340-300.

The real competitor of A343 is the 772ER, which came online in 1997. There is a 4 year gap between the first delivery of A343 vs B772ER. After 772ER came online, orders for A343 was significantly impacted. But by then, there were many A343 ordered and delivered already. Airbus essentially got a head-start of 4 years in the market. For A346 vs. 773ER, Airbus no longer had that head-start.

Not really. If you look at the MTOW, the basic A343 and the 777-200 are well matched. The A343E is halfway between the 777-200 and the 777-200ER.

airbazar wrote:

Having said that, there was a very brief period between 2002 and 2004 when the A346 was the best there was. For example, CX bought the A346 because it was the only plane that could fly non-stop between HKG and JFK in both directions, in the Winter and carry a lot of cargo in the process.
This was the order for entry into service:
777-300 1998
A340-600 2002
777-300ER 2004
A340-600HGW 2006?

That doesn't add up. CO started flying EWR-HKG with a 777-200ER in March 2001. If memory serves, this was due to the opening of new air corridors over Russia and China. CO beat both UA and CX to the nonstop New York market.

CX had 777-200s at the time, but I honestly don't know if they were the ER models (and I'm pretty sure they were RR powerplants not GE-90s). I also don't know about the Cargo capabilities on the CO services year round. I also don't buy the Cargo argument, since CX also flew to NY via YVR with 747s so there were plenty of services between HKG and NYC. But I could be wrong since I didn't work for CX.

Regardless, there was another plane capable of year round operations from New York to HKG. Yet CX went with the A340-600.

The A346 was a less than optimum design; the length to diameter ratio of the fuselage was too high making it overly heavy. On top of that it had four engines instead of two and those engines were not really state of the art. Nevertheless, it was designed to replace 747s and it was more efficient than they were, and absent the 77W it would almost certainly have been much more successful. But Boeing and GE managed to hit a home run with the 77W; both the airframe and engines exceeded expectations in performance and efficiency. The original design goals would have had the 77W beat the A346 efficiency by a few percent; it ended up being double digits. Not even the most optimistic Boeing officials had expected that.

airzim wrote:

airbazar wrote:

Having said that, there was a very brief period between 2002 and 2004 when the A346 was the best there was. For example, CX bought the A346 because it was the only plane that could fly non-stop between HKG and JFK in both directions, in the Winter and carry a lot of cargo in the process.
This was the order for entry into service:
777-300 1998
A340-600 2002
777-300ER 2004
A340-600HGW 2006?

That doesn't add up. CO started flying EWR-HKG with a 777-200ER in March 2001. If memory serves, this was due to the opening of new air corridors over Russia and China. CO beat both UA and CX to the nonstop New York market.

The difference being payload. Cargo is an integral part of CX's business and they carry a lot of it between HKG and JFK. The ability to carry cargo factored into the aircraft selection. I wouldn't be surprised if CO's flight was payload restricted but they sure as heck couldn't carry nearly as much cargo as the A346.

The world changed.

4 engines was cool in the 90s, not so cool in the 00s, and totally square in the 10s.

The 345 was the most unique in terms of range and awesomeness

Also worth noting that the A340-200/300 entered service a few years before the 77E, so while the platform wasn't quite as capable, or efficient, as the 777, it was more a contemporary of the MD-11 and had a few years' head start on the Triple.

The main issue is 4 engines vs 2. The 777 has more efficient, powerful engines that burn less fuel. The A340 program (-200/300 versions) began rolling off assembly lines just a few years before the 777-200 and the program provided better fuel consumption, range, and efficiency overall compared to tri-jets and older 747 models like the -200 and -300 but ultimately it was not enough and no match for the 777. By the time the A340-600 arrived and first delivery made in 2001, the 77W production had begun and orders filled and the 77W had the better options and selling points. The A346 was fundamentally designed to be a 747-200/300 replacement but by the time it arrived, the earlier 747s were well on their way out and the replacement aircraft of choice for any operators was the 77W.

SEPilot wrote:

The A346 was a less than optimum design; the length to diameter ratio of the fuselage was too high making it overly heavy. On top of that it had four engines instead of two and those engines were not really state of the art. Nevertheless, it was designed to replace 747s and it was more efficient than they were, and absent the 77W it would almost certainly have been much more successful. But Boeing and GE managed to hit a home run with the 77W; both the airframe and engines exceeded expectations in performance and efficiency. The original design goals would have had the 77W beat the A346 efficiency by a few percent; it ended up being double digits. Not even the most optimistic Boeing officials had expected that.

That was a very interesting time to be an airliner fan.

I did some googling and it seems Leeham has an interesting series called Sunset of the Quads which does a lot of analysis of all the players of the era, A340 vs 777 vs 747 vs A380 et al ( ref: https://leehamnews.com/2020/07/30/sunse ... ds-part-1/ for Part 1 ). It's all behind the paywall which IMO is fine, let the market determine if the content is worth paying for. Maybe once the snow flies I will spend the money needed to access the content for a month or two, but not now.

I did find one free article from 2013 that reminded me of something I had forgotten:

Airbus produced 246 A340-200/300s and 131 A340-500/600s; 227 and 131 respectively are in operation or parked.

Airbus guaranteed the residual value on an unknown number, and has strong motivation to see these airplanes continue in service, according to one person familiar with the situation.

Bernstein Research wrote in a recent note, A340s remain under pressure, with high fuel prices making these airplanes uneconomical in most applications. We expect that Airbus exposure to A340-500/600s could exceed €1 billion on AVGs exercisable at 10-12 years. EADS has taken provisions for these (extent unclear) and will likely work with airlines to find other financial arrangements than simply to pay out cash on the AVGs.

Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2013/12/08/airbu ... 40-future/

So Airbus had a lot on the line when it came to A340-NG performance, which presumably it mostly lost.

The article is interesting, it is about a summit where Airbus floated a few ideas on how the airlines might better utilize the A340 as it aged.

Yet it gives a snapshot of why it was not so popular:

• The A340-600 is lighter than a Boeing 747-400 but heavier than a new 777-300ER. Accordingly, Airbus says that it uses 21% less fuel than the 744 but 12% more fuel than the 773ER. Passenger counts assumed are 475, 510 and 475 respectively, the maximum allowed by exit limits. Range assumed is 4,000nm (a typically A346 mission).

• The 475 passenger count is the new capacity Airbus will seek to certify for the A346, which will lower cost per available seat mile by 7% and increase revenue potential by 35 seats, or an 8% increase in capacity, for a potential $5.5m/yr in increased revenue.

So Airbus had to choose some very pax-heavy counts on relatively short trips to make the A346 look good.

Did they ever bother certifying A346 for a 475 pax capacity?

The 77W exceeded expectations in both engine performance and aerodynamic clean up of the base model.

The A346 in comparison was overweight and cost more to maintain due to the additional engines. The 77W fuel burn difference was only part of the story, but the overall operating costs were dramatically better.

airzim wrote:

airbazar wrote:

Having said that, there was a very brief period between 2002 and 2004 when the A346 was the best there was. For example, CX bought the A346 because it was the only plane that could fly non-stop between HKG and JFK in both directions, in the Winter and carry a lot of cargo in the process.
This was the order for entry into service:
777-300 1998
A340-600 2002
777-300ER 2004
A340-600HGW 2006?

That doesn't add up. CO started flying EWR-HKG with a 777-200ER in March 2001. If memory serves, this was due to the opening of new air corridors over Russia and China. CO beat both UA and CX to the nonstop New York market.

CX had 777-200s at the time, but I honestly don't know if they were the ER models (and I'm pretty sure they were RR powerplants not GE-90s). I also don't know about the Cargo capabilities on the CO services year round. I also don't buy the Cargo argument, since CX also flew to NY via YVR with 747s so there were plenty of services between HKG and NYC. But I could be wrong since I didn't work for CX.

Regardless, there was another plane capable of year round operations from New York to HKG. Yet CX went with the A340-600.

CX's 777-200s were all A models. They haven't operated the 777-200ER. It's worth noting that (and was often discussed here that) EWR-HKG was at the limit of the 77E. At the time they had a respectable fleet of A330s and A343s. It's also worth mentioning that CX's early 777s had Trents, much as the A346. Beyond that I don't know what discussions were had by CX about fleet planning.

As noted, the A340-600 had a (cargo) payload advantage out of certain airports (JNB, especially) compared to the 777-300ER but overall, the 777-300ER carried more people and two GE90 engines burned less fuel and had lower aggregate maintenance costs than four Trent 500s. Financing was likely cheaper and easier for the 777 as the total pool of airframes rose and that likely helped general spares costs, as well. So soon enough the Cash Operating Cost advantage of the 777 became too great for most missions.

Airbus tried to address the financing side via Value Guarantees (which came back to haunt them a bit) and Rolls-Royce eventually agreed to reduce their maintenance pricing to bring the Trent 500's costs in-line with the GE90's, but by then the market had pretty much spoken in favor of the 777.

luckyone wrote:

airzim wrote:

airbazar wrote:

Having said that, there was a very brief period between 2002 and 2004 when the A346 was the best there was. For example, CX bought the A346 because it was the only plane that could fly non-stop between HKG and JFK in both directions, in the Winter and carry a lot of cargo in the process.
This was the order for entry into service:
777-300 1998
A340-600 2002
777-300ER 2004
A340-600HGW 2006?

That doesn't add up. CO started flying EWR-HKG with a 777-200ER in March 2001. If memory serves, this was due to the opening of new air corridors over Russia and China. CO beat both UA and CX to the nonstop New York market.

CX had 777-200s at the time, but I honestly don't know if they were the ER models (and I'm pretty sure they were RR powerplants not GE-90s). I also don't know about the Cargo capabilities on the CO services year round. I also don't buy the Cargo argument, since CX also flew to NY via YVR with 747s so there were plenty of services between HKG and NYC. But I could be wrong since I didn't work for CX.

Regardless, there was another plane capable of year round operations from New York to HKG. Yet CX went with the A340-600.

CX's 777-200s were all A models. They haven't operated the 777-200ER. It's worth noting that (and was often discussed here that) EWR-HKG was at the limit of the 77E. At the time they had a respectable fleet of A330s and A343s. It's also worth mentioning that CX's early 777s had Trents, much as the A346. Beyond that I don't know what discussions were had by CX about fleet planning.

All true, I was just reacting to the statement that there was no other plane capable on that sector, when another airline was flying the route with a 777 before CX started service. Was the cost of adding a different fleet model with different engines worth the trade off of carrying less cargo? Since CX ended up getting 77Ws (with GE-90s) the answer might have been yes in hindsight? (BA bought GE 77Es after initially having Trents, and also went for the 77W). Granted CX had a very small fleet of 777As and perhaps the A346s were better suited at the time weighing different cost/benefits.

There might also have been ETOPS issues at CX which also prevented 2 engine transpolar operations at the time. But I'm just guessing. At the time all their long haul services which would have required ETOPS, were on 4 engine aircraft.

airzim wrote:

(BA bought GE 77Es after initially having Trents, and also went for the 77W)

Actually the other way around. BA’s initial 777s has GE until they switched to their preferred vender of RR. The GE90 decision was related to a sale of BA’s engine overhaul facility to GE.

Polot wrote:

airzim wrote:

(BA bought GE 77Es after initially having Trents, and also went for the 77W)

Actually the other way around. BA’s initial 777s has GE until they switched to their preferred vender of RR. The GE90 decision was related to a sale of BA’s engine overhaul facility to GE.

Sorry, you're right.

ETOPS-330

luckyone wrote:

Boeing757rb211 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Not an apples to apples comparison because there is overlap between the 77E and the A330, particularly the earlier generations of the 772.

the 422 is Specifically for the 777-200ER ONLY and the 218 is also ONLY for the A340-300 so wouldn't that be an EXACT comparison ? Because the Original poster i was replying to stated something like "Im pretty sure the 777-200ER sold Vastly more than the A340-300,,, Which those are the Exact numbers for, Specific to Those 2 Models Only.

No it wouldn't be an exact because again, there is overlap and not a reflection of actual markets to just compare those two.

NOBODY was trying to compare the market share or make a "Fair" 1 to 1 comparison with no room for any other information. But the Fact IS,,, the original poster i was replying to Only asked or rather stated "Didn't the 777-200 ER WAY outsell the A340-300",,,,, To which i replied with some EXACT Number/Figures for those 2 EXACT models,,, not the 777-200 or any other version and not the A340-200 or any other A340,, Specifically the 2 aircraft he/she mentioned / compared which was the 777-200ER of which 422 were Delivered and the A340-300 of which only 218 were Delivered. I wasn't getting into "this this make sense" "is this a fair comparison" "do these 2 aircraft compare to each other EXACTLY" no,,, All i was doing was replying back to that person comment with some EXACT numbers which i did which makes it an EXACT comparison to the question "Did the 777-200ER Way outsell the A340-300?" Numbers dont lie and the Numbers for those 2 Specific Model Variants and those Variants ONLY,,, Seem to "agree" with the statement that the 777-200ER (not 777-200 or 777-300 or 777-300ER, or A340-200 or Anything else) DID In Fact Sell quite a bit more than the A340-300,, Basically by Half. Why it did so, or any other questions / comparisons were not included or thought about in Just replying to the persons comment some some actual figures".

ikramerica wrote:

ETOPS-330

Exactly!

Some of the younger folk on here may not remember that operations beyond ETOPS-180 were still very new.

When Air Canada chose the A340-300 over the 777-200ER a part of that decision was borne on the fact that it was entirely unrestricted on long haul international operations, right from the factory. Transport Canada required a year of experience on the 777/GE90 combination before anything more than ETOPS-120 was authorized.

I am old enough to remember Virgin’s “4engines 4long haul” or Lufthansa declaring that they will never fly a twin across the ocean!

As the world (and governmental bodies) became more comfortable with ultra long haul twin operations, the A340 no longer had the edge. The economics of the Boeing were compelling and sales records reflect that.

Polot wrote:

airzim wrote:

(BA bought GE 77Es after initially having Trents, and also went for the 77W)

Actually the other way around. BA’s initial 777s has GE until they switched to their preferred vender of RR. The GE90 decision was related to a sale of BA’s engine overhaul facility to GE.

Wasn’t there also a contractual issue with a canceled or substituted 744 order?

Polot wrote:

Actually the other way around. BA’s initial 777s has GE until they switched to their preferred vender of RR. The GE90 decision was related to a sale of BA’s engine overhaul facility to GE.

luckyone wrote:

Wasn’t there also a contractual issue with a canceled or substituted 744 order?

As I understand it, the deal to go GE was driven by GE agreeing to take over BA's engine overhaul facility (British Airways Engine Overhaul Ltd.) in Cardiff, Wales.

The GE90 had significant teething issues early on (in part because it was a new design versus the P&W and RR engines) and that helped push BA to choose RR for their follow-on 777-200 family tranche orders.

The airframe and engine order, placed in August 1991, was for 15 777s with 15 options and 24 747s.

seahawk wrote:

raylee67 wrote:

I would not say the 343 did quite well against the 772. A340-300 entered service in 1993 and 777-200 in 1995. However, the 1995 version of 772 is the "A" model. It was designed to fly medium range routes, not long range routes. The competitor of 772A model is really the A330-300, not A340-300.

The real competitor of A343 is the 772ER, which came online in 1997. There is a 4 year gap between the first delivery of A343 vs B772ER. After 772ER came online, orders for A343 was significantly impacted. But by then, there were many A343 ordered and delivered already. Airbus essentially got a head-start of 4 years in the market. For A346 vs. 773ER, Airbus no longer had that head-start.

Not really. If you look at the MTOW, the basic A343 and the 777-200 are well matched. The A343E is halfway between the 777-200 and the 777-200ER.

I am looking at the range, not MTOW:
777-200A: With a 545,000 lb (247 t) MTOW and 77,000 lbf (340 kN) engines, it has a range of 5,240 nautical miles (9,700 km) with 305 passengers in a three-class configuration.
"https://web.archive.org/web/20140802021208/http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/startup/pdf/777_perf.pdf"
A340-300 (not-300E): The A340-300 flies 295 passengers in a typical three-class cabin layout over 6,700 nautical miles (12,400 km). This is the initial version, having flown on 25 October 1991, and entered service with Lufthansa and Air France in March 1993.
"https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corporate-topics/publications/backgrounders/techdata/aircraft_characteristics/Airbus-Commercial-Aircraft-AC-A340-200-300.pdf"

For Asian airlines which had both 777-200A and the initial batch of A340-300, they were able to deploy the A340 on Asia-Europe or West Coast routes (e.g. HKG-FCO, HKG-ZRH, HKG-AMS, HKG-SFO, HKG-YVR for CX) but not the 777-200A . The furthest CX was able to fly the 777-200A was HKG-BAH. That makes the difference for many Asian airlines, such as CX and SQ, to order the A343. 772A simply was not able to fly the routes these airlines would put the A343 onto. UA never put their 772A onto trans-Pacific routes too (except HNL-US mainland). 772 is not deployed into trans-Pacific until the ER version came on. CZ was the first airline to use the ER on trans-Pacific, with CAN-LAX.

That is not the interesting question if you compare aircraft. Interesting is the OEW, MTOW in relation to payload and range. And if you look at the OEW and MTOW the A343 had a lower OEW and similar MTOW as the 777-200, which resulted in a longer range while carrying a similar payload.

The 777-200ER increased the MTOW by a lot (~20%) but the OEW only increased by 2%. With this the plane became much more competitive, as it could now fly the same payload over longer ranges.

Stitch wrote:

Polot wrote:

Actually the other way around. BA’s initial 777s has GE until they switched to their preferred vender of RR. The GE90 decision was related to a sale of BA’s engine overhaul facility to GE.

luckyone wrote:

Wasn’t there also a contractual issue with a canceled or substituted 744 order?

As I understand it, the deal to go GE was driven by GE agreeing to take over BA's engine overhaul facility (British Airways Engine Overhaul Ltd.) in Cardiff, Wales.

The GE90 had significant teething issues early on (in part because it was a new design versus the P&W and RR engines) and that helped push BA to choose RR for their follow-on 777-200 family tranche orders.

The airframe and engine order, placed in August 1991, was for 15 777s with 15 options and 24 747s.

viewtopic.php?t=402507. Post #11

luckyone wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Polot wrote:

Actually the other way around. BA’s initial 777s has GE until they switched to their preferred vender of RR. The GE90 decision was related to a sale of BA’s engine overhaul facility to GE.

luckyone wrote:

Wasn’t there also a contractual issue with a canceled or substituted 744 order?

As I understand it, the deal to go GE was driven by GE agreeing to take over BA's engine overhaul facility (British Airways Engine Overhaul Ltd.) in Cardiff, Wales.

The GE90 had significant teething issues early on (in part because it was a new design versus the P&W and RR engines) and that helped push BA to choose RR for their follow-on 777-200 family tranche orders.

The airframe and engine order, placed in August 1991, was for 15 777s with 15 options and 24 747s.

viewtopic.php?t=402507. Post #11

That’s all in reference to BA’s follow up 777 order placed in 1998 where BA switched to RR, not the initial GE powered 777 order. BA did not have GE powered 747s.

Polot wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Stitch wrote:

As I understand it, the deal to go GE was driven by GE agreeing to take over BA's engine overhaul facility (British Airways Engine Overhaul Ltd.) in Cardiff, Wales.

The GE90 had significant teething issues early on (in part because it was a new design versus the P&W and RR engines) and that helped push BA to choose RR for their follow-on 777-200 family tranche orders.

The airframe and engine order, placed in August 1991, was for 15 777s with 15 options and 24 747s.

viewtopic.php?t=402507. Post #11

That’s all in reference to BA’s follow up 777 order placed in 1998 where BA switched to RR, not the initial GE powered 777 order. BA did not have GE powered 747s.

Correct, which is what I was saying. The switch from GE to RR was due to a contract BA had with RR for 747 power, and when they switched changed their order from 747s to 777s, that existing contract went into the decision making to choose RR power in lieu of GE.