Boeing 777 or Airbus A340
Started by the DOC, Mar 25 2012 08:46 PM
#1
Posted 25 March 2012 - 08:46 PM
This subject comes up a lot but which is better, the 777 or the A340
#2
Posted 25 March 2012 - 09:00 PM
I usually look for the aircraft that has the best range I can get, for the shortest runway I need. In a perfect world, I would like to get 8000+ miles range for a 7,500 foot runway, but often 7,000 miles off a 10,000 foot runway works. But for me profitability often matters most. I find the 777 makes more money, so I prefer it.
#3
Posted 25 March 2012 - 09:03 PM
These aircraft are completely incomparable unless a series of missions are stated which you wish to fly with these aircraft.
#4
Posted 25 March 2012 - 09:21 PM
77W with 77L range and 772 runway requirements and fuel burn = perfect
I liked TW and it's gone. NW, and it's gone. CO, and it's gone. Pray I don't like you.
"How sad it would be, should laughter disappear."
Spoiler
#5
Posted 25 March 2012 - 09:32 PM
As SB stated... there is no way to decide wich one is best unless we get a specefic usage or route that your going to use the equipment on...
Delta-Northwest
#6
Posted 25 March 2012 - 09:43 PM
A little off topic, but if you've ever wondered why South African ordered the A340 over the 777?
In 1997 both Airbus and Boeing sent a 777 and A340 down to Jo'burg to compete for the SA order. By this time Boeing had it in the bag, in fact SA already had preliminary orders for the frame.
Both manufacturers had arranged for demonstration flights to woo the executives. Boeing was up first and the SA CEO took his seat on the 777, on take off the engines spooled, but at around 80 knots one of the two engines suffered a compressor stall and the take off was aborted.
Boeing apologised profusely while the CEO was taken to the awaiting A340. On take-off, then Airbus CEO, Jean Pierson said to the SA CEO with a smile "See, our A340s have 4 engines. Even if one were to go, you still have another three as insurance."
Whether that was the reason for SA ordering the A340 or not, they're still flying them some 15 years later and still with the absence of the 777.
In 1997 both Airbus and Boeing sent a 777 and A340 down to Jo'burg to compete for the SA order. By this time Boeing had it in the bag, in fact SA already had preliminary orders for the frame.
Both manufacturers had arranged for demonstration flights to woo the executives. Boeing was up first and the SA CEO took his seat on the 777, on take off the engines spooled, but at around 80 knots one of the two engines suffered a compressor stall and the take off was aborted.
Boeing apologised profusely while the CEO was taken to the awaiting A340. On take-off, then Airbus CEO, Jean Pierson said to the SA CEO with a smile "See, our A340s have 4 engines. Even if one were to go, you still have another three as insurance."
Whether that was the reason for SA ordering the A340 or not, they're still flying them some 15 years later and still with the absence of the 777.
#7
Posted 25 March 2012 - 09:45 PM
Because South Africa is a hot and high climate where the A340 has better take-off performance
#8
Posted 25 March 2012 - 09:48 PM
Because South Africa is a hot and high climate where the A340 has better take-off performance
Maybe, but that doesn't explain why SA originally ordered the 777. And what about Emirates, PIA, Air India, Egyptair - they all fly the 777.
#9
Posted 25 March 2012 - 09:53 PM
Once again they don not operate the same missions. And you never know what type of pricing SAA got...
#10
Posted 26 March 2012 - 12:20 AM
Boeing 777
It can do almost all of the A330's, A340's, A350's and 747's jobs and it's only one aircraft family so cheaper maintenance costs. It has a high minimum runway length though.
It can do almost all of the A330's, A340's, A350's and 747's jobs and it's only one aircraft family so cheaper maintenance costs. It has a high minimum runway length though.
#11
Posted 26 March 2012 - 03:19 AM
In R5, I have found that the A343 is better in most fields (other than runway requirements).
Comparison on CAN-CGK:
So yeah, A343 does a bit better and has better range in the era R5 is in (1994).
Comparison on CAN-CGK:
So yeah, A343 does a bit better and has better range in the era R5 is in (1994).
R6 - NSW Airlines
#12
Posted 26 March 2012 - 10:39 PM
yea i was going to say A340 also but not the A346 and A345
#13
Posted 27 March 2012 - 03:34 PM
In this game, A340 is better than B777. But in real life A340 is considered as a flop. B777 rules the sky today. This is a fact. Biggest airlines and the best ones too, prefer B777. There's gotta be a reason for it.
#14
Posted 27 March 2012 - 06:43 PM
If you have access to better fuel flow data, feel free to add it to the bugs section
#15
Posted 31 March 2012 - 09:10 PM
#16
Posted 06 April 2012 - 05:13 AM
#17
Posted 06 April 2012 - 05:25 AM
In real life, the Triple 7 is the king of the skies. It's one of the wonders of the engineering world.That's not to say the A340 has not found niche routes, and that the A333 can't do some things the 772 can do, but two engines are cheaper than four, and Boeing really hit the jackpot in its fuselage design. Boeing's pushing 1500 orders on its way to 2000 777s.
In AE, as has been said, we'd have to see the routes before we can make that call.
In AE, as has been said, we'd have to see the routes before we can make that call.
#18
Posted 01 November 2016 - 04:32 AM
If you operate 330 then you can buy both for quick expansion
If you dont have 330 or dont plan to operate it in future then stick with 777
BTW when does 777-9x come out in this game?
#19
Posted 02 November 2016 - 07:20 PM
BTW when does 777-9x come out in this game?
It's not in the game. It can be if you can find data on things like Thrust-Specifics Fuel consumption on the GE9X, average takeoff length, its cruising speed, max certifiable seat capacity, etc, etc...
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users