16 replies to this topic

[S.Stav]

Hi guys,

 

I have wanted to ask the forum their opinion and personal experiance with the A340-600 vs the B777-300ER aircraft on long haul flight and short haul flights.  I have the Airbus A340-600 on order with only 1 new frame in operation which is on a long haul flight and it it quite fuel thrusty from what I can see, would this be cancelled out by the fact it is nearly $3million less per month on lease than the B777-300ER which has a lower fuel burn?

 

Thank you very much any feed back even with other aircraft is fine!

[Stevphfeniey]

It actually works out that the A340-600 costs far less money in the long term than the 777-300ER due entirely to the fact that its monthly lease and maintenance costs are lower. Also, it is a much more versatile aircraft thanks to its lower runway use, so I'd say go for it. 

[mrinalverma74]

It actually works out that the A340-600 costs far less money in the long term than the 777-300ER due entirely to the fact that its monthly lease and maintenance costs are lower. Also, it is a much more versatile aircraft thanks to its lower runway use, so I'd say go for it. 

Ya me to I consider a340-600 better, but if u have money and can BUY a 777 than go for 777

[Amadeus Inc.]

I would rather order A340-300 than A340-600, except for prestigious reason of having top of the line.

In AE, -300 is a much more fuel efficient aircraft than -600. offering similar range and capacity.

If for prestige reason I need to decide between A346 and B77W, i would go with Boeing 777-300ER

[mxax-ai]

If you can fill it and don't need the range or runway performance, go for the 777-300 non-ER. It has the best CASM in the market hands down, only to be matched by the A380. If you do need the range, you could watch out for fleet commonality, otherwise the 77W is a bit better still. Despite the higher fuelburn, I always recommend getting the higher thrrust version on at least a few of your birds for using them to some of the various airposrts with less than 10000 feet runways.

[Mobeer]

A340-300 has better CASM run than the higher-thrust shorter-runway 777-300 versions. It may even be competitive to the 777-300 with Rolls-Royce Trent 884 after the lower leasing cost and lower maintenance cost of the A340 is considered, at least when new. Plus the 1500ft shorter runway requirement (vs. 777-300 with Trent 884) allows the A340-300 to exploit more routes.

[Appassionata]

Agreed. A346 is a gas guzzler and will find hard to profitably operate in many trunk routes when yields go down a lot. (Especially in 75-year worlds, where it is not unusual to see trans-atlantic selling at $200 and PEK-US routes under $500) 77W(777-300ER) is much better in that respect, but is not as good as it is in reality. In fact, CASM-wise, it is not any better than 747-400. If you think you can fill 747, then go for 747-400, and wait until 747-8 or A350 comes out. Otherwise, go for A340-300 as people have mentioned, or 777-300, non-ER if the route is within 6000-mile range. btw, if the airport cannot house a 777-300, then that airport might not make enough passenger to fill that airplane after all. (Only exception I can think of is Istanbul.)

[S.Stav]

Yes great replies!  I was looking over the aircraft even the B777-200ER would be beneficial compared to the 343,346,77W,773.

 

I have found operating the Airbus A330-200 to be very good on medium and long haul flights, the A300-600R is also not that bad the 332 with RR trent 772 has a burn of 42,660 as opposed to the A300-600R 41,648.  On all routes that I have an A330-200 and A300-600R operating side by side the 332 has a fuel cost of around 5% less than the A300.   

[mxax-ai]

A340-300 has better CASM run than the higher-thrust shorter-runway 777-300 versions. It may even be competitive to the 777-300 with Rolls-Royce Trent 884 after the lower leasing cost and lower maintenance cost of the A340 is considered, at least when new. Plus the 1500ft shorter runway requirement (vs. 777-300 with Trent 884) allows the A340-300 to exploit more routes.

I set up a table with some of the CASMs in game, where I included the speed. this was before the speed update, so I'm not sure how accurate the numbers are now, but in my calculations the 773 had a lower CASM than the 343.
Edit: I looked up the Numbers: They are 0.19 for the A343, 0.17/0.179 for the 773 and approximately 0.015-0.02 less with the new speeds. Lower is better.

[Stevphfeniey]

>not basing your choice in aircraft off aesthetics 

 

Plebs

[LJ Aviation]

Buy both

Reason for 777: 2 engine is better than 4 engine

Reason for 340: does not add maintenance cost if you operate 330

If you want to expand quickly buy both

If you dont care about expansion speed then if you have 330 buy 340 if you dont have 330 buy 777

[LJ Aviation]

Agreed. A346 is a gas guzzler and will find hard to profitably operate in many trunk routes when yields go down a lot. (Especially in 75-year worlds, where it is not unusual to see trans-atlantic selling at $200 and PEK-US routes under $500) 77W(777-300ER) is much better in that respect, but is not as good as it is in reality. In fact, CASM-wise, it is not any better than 747-400. If you think you can fill 747, then go for 747-400, and wait until 747-8 or A350 comes out. Otherwise, go for A340-300 as people have mentioned, or 777-300, non-ER if the route is within 6000-mile range. btw, if the airport cannot house a 777-300, then that airport might not make enough passenger to fill that airplane after all. (Only exception I can think of is Istanbul.)

How long is Istanbul runway? I thought it could land 77W. Well Turkish Airlines has some 777s how would they take off?

[pdxpilot06]

If you can fill it and don't need the range or runway performance, go for the 777-300 non-ER. It has the best CASM in the market hands down, only to be matched by the A380. If you do need the range, you could watch out for fleet commonality, otherwise the 77W is a bit better still. Despite the higher fuelburn, I always recommend getting the higher thrrust version on at least a few of your birds for using them to some of the various airposrts with less than 10000 feet runways.

 

Are you referencing RW CASM figures or have you worked it out based on aircraft configurations in AE?

[LJ Aviation]

Yes great replies!  I was looking over the aircraft even the B777-200ER would be beneficial compared to the 343,346,77W,773.

 

I have found operating the Airbus A330-200 to be very good on medium and long haul flights, the A300-600R is also not that bad the 332 with RR trent 772 has a burn of 42,660 as opposed to the A300-600R 41,648.  On all routes that I have an A330-200 and A300-600R operating side by side the 332 has a fuel cost of around 5% less than the A300.   

Well thats because 332 is newer than 306

Plus 332 is not that good

333 is the best plane in this game

If you want to run long thin routes ill say go for 757/777 with low density

[pilot773lr]

777 makes a statement.

[LJ Aviation]

If you can fill it and don't need the range or runway performance, go for the 777-300 non-ER. It has the best CASM in the market hands down, only to be matched by the A380. If you do need the range, you could watch out for fleet commonality, otherwise the 77W is a bit better still. Despite the higher fuelburn, I always recommend getting the higher thrrust version on at least a few of your birds for using them to some of the various airposrts with less than 10000 feet runways.

yes 773 is the best

if you want the range then go for 777-200ER these planes are more efficient than 77W

Or just go with A340