88 replies to this topic

[hayhaa]

I choose the A340 because it just looks better. i mean like there aren't many single deck commercial planes with 4 engines anymore. plus, the landing gear just makes the a340 look even better!!! furthermore, the a340 is really, really quiet inside. unlike the 777, you can barely hear the engines at cruising altitude.

so which one do you like better?

[Zacca]

I like the 777 but the A340-600 is gorgeous

[Med.]

As an AE player: A340

It just prints money for you in game.

 

As a real-world airline CEO: B777

It's more reliable, economical and more capable.

 

As a passenger: A340

Its 8-abreast is perfect! Most airlines use 10-abreast on the B777 which sucks.

 

As an aviation enthusiast: A340

You cant beat its 4-engines over 2. It just looks better.

 

Overall: A340 for me, but I understand why the B777 is more popular nowadays.

[TNT88]

A340-600 is the best plane they ever made. 

[jmfsam]

Real life, 777, I like the design and the simplicity 

[Frostino18]

I don't mine the 777 when in 9 a breast configuration similar to Singapore Airlines  though I mostly fly on the A330 or A380 long/medium haul since I mainly travel to South-East Asia from Australia. They're arent many A340s left in Asia and none in Australia mostly in Europe. 

[Kirkland]

A340 is trash in efficiency, in game, and in real life. I'd much much rather be in one or see one in real life, however.

[Airplane09]

The 777 all day all night. This airplane is the definition of "masterpiece", a true jewel in all terms. BOEING makes the difference between dedicated, top workers who do what they dream with passion and just simple workforce. They are the best in the world, no doubt in my mind. And this aircraft is the product of these ingenious minds and hard working hands. YES, most of the work involving the 777 was hand-made. I'm not talking looks. I'm talking PERFORMANCE. I'm talking DEDICATION. These people live for their airplanes. Don't believe me?

Check these:

 

The scale at which all this is done is simply stunning for me. Hats down. Proud "Boeing guy" forever.

[Airplane09]

(well, I didn't expect that the whole videos would pop up, but just the links........ sorry for that)

[Jet-A Marinade]

I'd take the 777 any day of the week...

It's a breeze to fuel, compared to an A330/340 which takes forever to fuel.



Airbus A340-500 = 4 Engines 4 Long Haul

 

Boeing 777-200LR = 2 Engines 4 Longer Haul


 

[Avelo]

http://ae31.airline-...3s3b&player=171

I'll be ordering A340s for this airline once they're available...

[lat_eral]

The 777 is hands down the perfect plane in my opinion.... Looks beautiful, more efficient, more comfortable (from my experience). I'd fly in a 777 over any other plane any day of the week (except maybe a 787)

[konj1]

777 is more efficient and makes more sense. 

 

A340, on the other hand, is beautiful, especially -500 and -600, quad is always prettier but but 4 engines need more maintenance and if there's another option in the same era, a rational airline should probably buy the twin-engine option. 

 

 

But if I had an airline I wouldn't take either if there's serious market to watch , A330 is the most rational choice, IRW 6000-7000+ mile routes make planes into super-tankers that barely justify carrying that weight of fuel in the first 2000 miles, and 777-300 is too big for a starting business. I'd prefer frequency over airplane size and sizes between A330-200 and A330-300 are just fine. A350 or 787 would be cool but they're still very expensive.

 

Maybe if an airline grew to huge proportions to compensate market instability, or had state subsidies to fly long routes, maybe, or if ultra-long-haul makes sense again because of falling fuel prices. But if it's strictly business, A330.

[TNT88]

777 is more efficient and makes more sense. 

 

A340, on the other hand, is beautiful, especially -500 and -600, quad is always prettier but but 4 engines need more maintenance and if there's another option in the same era, a rational airline should probably buy the twin-engine option. 

 

 

But if I had an airline I wouldn't take either if there's serious market to watch , A330 is the most rational choice, IRW 6000-7000+ mile routes make planes into super-tankers that barely justify carrying that weight of fuel in the first 2000 miles, and 777-300 is too big for a starting business. I'd prefer frequency over airplane size and sizes between A330-200 and A330-300 are just fine. A350 or 787 would be cool but they're still very expensive.

 

Maybe if an airline grew to huge proportions to compensate market instability, or had state subsidies to fly long routes, maybe, or if ultra-long-haul makes sense again because of falling fuel prices. But if it's strictly business, A330.

 

 

To be honest, the only profitable series for B777 is the -300ER. The -200/ER is getting ancient these days, unless you fitted it with 10 abreast and 30" seat pitch. Also, A330 range would probably be 4000 to 5000 miles max at full payload. 

[konj1]

Also, A330 range would probably be 4000 to 5000 miles max at full payload. 

I don't think so, it's comfortably over 5000, there are lots of 5000+ nmi (around 6000 mi) routes between western Europe and China (e.g. CDG-PVG) served by A330, and when I checked for fun I remember Aeroflot SVO-HAV was also A330, and that's just the first that comes to my mind, someone could probably remember something over 6000.

[TNT88]

I don't think so, it's comfortably over 5000, there are lots of 5000+ nmi (around 6000 mi) routes between western Europe and China (e.g. CDG-PVG) served by A330, and when I checked for fun I remember Aeroflot SVO-HAV was also A330, and that's just the first that comes to my mind, someone could probably remember something over 6000.

Obviously they could fly that far, but if you read my previous comment again, I did said full payload, which mean all the seat occupied + all the baggages + revenue cargo. Which is what airlines want.

[konj1]

Obviously they could fly that far, but if you read my previous comment again, I did said full payload, which mean all the seat occupied + all the baggages + revenue cargo. Which is what airlines want.

Yeah, they could and they do. What the hell are you talking about? Not full load on routes that are well inside A330's max payload range?? What else are they doing but full seats and baggage and cargo, those are not test flights, of course it's full payload, tens of airlines don't fly hundreds of routes a day for just half of tickets sold and empty cargo space, or for our amusement.

 

Just watching on FR24 A332 - KAL61 ICN-LAX-GRU   ... And about a dozen of other 6000+ mile flights like MAD-EZE.

tnx flightradar24

[TNT88]

Yeah, they could and they do. What the hell are you talking about? Not full load on routes that are well inside A330's max payload range?? What else are they doing but full seats and baggage and cargo, those are not test flights, of course it's full payload, tens of airlines don't fly hundreds of routes a day for just half of tickets sold and empty cargo space, or for our amusement.

 

Just watching on FR24 A332 - KAL61 ICN-LAX-GRU   ... And about a dozen of other 6000+ mile flights like MAD-EZE.

tnx flightradar24

Hmmm, I'm not sure if you know that on longer routes, Airlines didn't load much cargo to compensate for fuel weight. Obviously A330-300 could fly 6000 miles and all, but it needed to carry the maximum amount of fuel it needed to fly that far. Also, there are lots of cargo like machine parts or those fancy ferrari that are small in size but really heavy compared to other mail and ebay packages. And the heavier the cargo, the more money they get, they could cram as many as small heavy objects to make money, and those add up.