B772LR vs. A345

[mariner75]

Well the big forehead gives the crew room to sleep and gives the T7 more cargo space that the A345. The A345 has to have the crew resting area in the cargo area. Boeing can use their space wisely unlike Airbus.

[Kwashiorkor]

Well, again, I'm not factoring in any possible advantages or any such stuff. Only about looks here! I know what the "forehead" is used for.

And about "Boeing can use their space wisely unlike Airbus.". Look at the cargo capacity of the 767 . The A300 can hold two containers side by side while the 767 can not. So much about "space being used wisely".

[vojoboy]

I see the 777-200LR being configured more densily because it apparently is capable of it. So why not stuff some seats in it to make it more profitable? An airline company is what it is: a company. And a company wants to earn money. You earn money by selling seats and the more seats you have, the more money you get.

Airliners are configured according to the mission profiles that the fulfill. If a plane needs to be stuffed to 301 passengers (with more economy seats) because the routes it flies does not have a high premium demand, then the airline will do it. As of now, most C-Market routes are being stimulated to cater to high-margin traffic. Given this, you'll probably see the 777-200LR configured by SQ to low density and possibly make up the lost revenue (space-wise) through charging a Premium and Cargo.

... I just can't believe that Singapore Airlines won't do the same. Time will tell I think.

Regular Economy in SQ has a seat pitch of around 32". They cannot squeeze in anymore than that. As far as its C-Market planes are concerned, you'll probably see them keep the Premium Economy Arrangement (by the way, you can fly SQ Executive Economy using Economy-level Super Saver miles ) since they can charge a premium for it.

Didn't the B747 have some bars at introduction ? Now, where are they? Right, traded in for more seats!

That's why the A380 marketing crap doesnt make sense. By the way, SQ's A345's (as well as VS' A346's) have mini-bars.

Yes, that might be good if the middle seat is empty but knowing my luck I wouldn't get such a thing. So why take the risk of being cramped into that odd middle seat when you can get a window or aisle seat for sure? In the middle it is a bit different but if you don't fly alone then you normally have somebody you know to climb over.

Again it depends passenger per passenger. Unless the passenger is willing to pay a premium, he is at the "mercy" of the aircraft and configuration that the Airline uses for the route. If the passenger wants space and does not want to be an a middle seat then he/she'll just have to fly first class or some of the new J cabins.

I would like to see SQ's 2-3-2 seating on all Airbus planes, though, that seems to be great. But that won't go without a huge increase fee-wise.

Your statement is true for now as SQ has retired all of its A310'(which had 2-4-2 in Y).

Of course it's the airlines which decide what layout they want to have in that plane. But the 777 being wider it would be quite dumb actually not to fit at least one more seat than on the A340. Or is there any 777 flying around with a 2-4-2 seating in economy?

Soon. EVA's Premium Economy on the 777-300ER will have 2-4-2 seating.

As for Emirates: I wondered ever since I read about their layout if with that seating they can get more people in it than in a 777 with, say, 3-3-3? You have a seat more in that row but with the increased pitch they trade off one or two rows in the end, don't they? How does this work out? Or did they just lay the priorities onto pitch and not seat width?

They wanted a high capacity plane to ply the "leisure" routes where there are more Y passenger demand. They get more People on the 3-4-3 seating since the increase in Pitch is compensated by their less than stellar J and F Cabin on most of these birds (i.e. 777-300).

And as I ment: the A340 actually makes good money otherwise the airlines would trade it in for some Boeings in no time.

SQ already did that a few years ago. Air Canada almost did that again a few months ago.
As I said its a good performer, can haul a good volume of cargo, has commonality with the A330 and has a lower acquisition price. Some number crunchers would probably find adding the aircraft to their existing fleet as a better fit for them than acquiring 777's.

But it looks like the overall product (say commonality) matches up for some shortcomings of the aircraft themselves.

If your talking about cockpit commonality, its overrated. What counts more is parts and operational commonality where you can save money by keeping a smaller inventory and have capacity flexibility based on seasonal traffic.

With all that being said I have to admit that I like the 777 way more than an A340-300 just by the looks of it. But the A340-500 is some great plane as is the -600. But from a passenger point of view I would rather go on the bus.

I have to admit that the A340 is a nice looking plane. Unfortunately its a relatively poor performer.

[billiam]

...
That's why the A380 marketing crap doesnt make sense. By the way, SQ's A345's (as well as VS' A346's) have mini-bars.

VS's 744's have a bar area for UC pax as well Now, how about a piano...

[Kwashiorkor]

Airliners are configured according to the mission profiles that the fulfill. If a plane needs to be stuffed to 301 passengers (with more economy seats) because the routes it flies does not have a high premium demand, then the airline will do it. As of now, most C-Market routes are being stimulated to cater to high-margin traffic. Given this, you'll probably see the 777-200LR configured by SQ to low density and possibly make up the lost revenue (space-wise) through charging a Premium and Cargo.

True but I guess that many passengers who fly longhaul would want to rather get that in one leg than having to deboard and reboard again. SQ might end up configuring their 777-200LR for more pax. As I said: Time will tell and I'm eager to see what SQ makes out of their 772LR.

Regular Economy in SQ has a seat pitch of around 32". They cannot squeeze in anymore than that. As far as its C-Market planes are concerned, you'll probably see them keep the Premium Economy Arrangement (by the way, you can fly SQ Executive Economy using Economy-level Super Saver miles ) since they can charge a premium for it.

Oh sure they can . Look at LH, they have 31" . That's why I want to avoid LH as much as possible. Economy-level Super Saver miles? That sounds somehow complicated .

That's why the A380 marketing crap doesnt make sense. By the way, SQ's A345's (as well as VS' A346's) have mini-bars.

I didn't believe one word or one drawing of the configuration of the A380. As seen in recent history space in aircraft is used only for one thing: seats! But would love to see the minibars, though. Are they only in the premium part of the aircraft?

Again it depends passenger per passenger. Unless the passenger is willing to pay a premium, he is at the "mercy" of the aircraft and configuration that the Airline uses for the route. If the passenger wants space and does not want to be an a middle seat then he/she'll just have to fly first class or some of the new J cabins.

We as informed "airplane nuts" can easily avoid being on a plane one doesn't want to fly with by just choosing the "right" airline. But for the regular I-don't-care-what-plane-this-is-as-long-as-it-gets-me-where-I-want-passenger you are right.

Your statement is true for now as SQ has retired all of its A310'(which had 2-4-2 in Y).

As any widebody Airbus until the A380 enters service.

They wanted a high capacity plane to ply the "leisure" routes where there are more Y passenger demand. They get more People on the 3-4-3 seating since the increase in Pitch is compensated by their less than stellar J and F Cabin on most of these birds (i.e. 777-300).

Okay but what if the J and F cabin would be the same as on other aircraft? Would these cramped configurations still hold more passengers?

If your talking about cockpit commonality, its overrated. What counts more is parts and operational commonality where you can save money by keeping a smaller inventory and have capacity flexibility based on seasonal traffic.

No, I'm not only looking at cockpit commonality. It has to be an advantage, though, that the fuselage diameter is the same for any of the widebodies, that the one aisle aircraft all are the same plane with different lengths and that cockpits are that similar. Just look at spare parts: isn't it great when you can use the same switch for, let's say the panel lighting, on all Airbus aircraft? Or that that there are only two sets of cockpit windows? But I see that this is actually what you stated . That has to be a great advantage, no?

I have to admit that the A340 is a nice looking plane. Unfortunately its a relatively poor performer.

With that many A340 flying around I just can't believe that this is true for the airlines. Might be true for the A340-500 as it eventually didn't meet its design specifics but as for the A340-300, -600 it looks like the airlines are quite happy using them. Otherwise we would have LH 777s standing in MUC and not a large fleet of these hairdryer powered quads.

[BOEING777X]

@Boeing777x: The A300 has been and is still a good freighter as it still is being produced. And with the A380F coming I don't see any need for something in between. It seems also that the market is not that large with all the MD-11F (which are great in my opinion ) flying around. Is Boeing actually trying to push the MD-11F out of the market with their 777 freighter? Or do these aircraft not compete?

A380F is pure volume, not weight.

As for the MD11F, compared to the 777F, it is totally inefficient. MD11F has a 90ton uplift capability- the 777F will have 100tons, lower maintenance due to two fantastic engines- and range beyond any freighter around today.

The A300F is a good frieghter, yes- but its not the best- even on short hops intra Europe, the 757-200PF has lower trip costs and greater yields.

This is why the fuselage is such an important design factor. And thats why you wont ever see a freighter in the A330 or A340. Ever.

717 aside, Boeing has a freighter for every model- even including pax-to-freight conversions- AB cant claim that- thats why its 60's designed A300/A310/A330/A340/A350 design will always be second fiddle and irrelevant to the operations of airlines today

[ConcordeBoy]

As any widebody Airbus until the A380 enters service.

...ya might wanna think about that statement one more time champ

With that many A340 flying

what are you talking about? The A340 family is one of the worse sellers in modern aviation history.

but as for the A340-300, -600 it looks like the airlines are quite happy using them.

...which is exactly why several A343 airlines defected to the 777, why the 777NGs have never lost a customer (but the A340NG has lost multiple), and why the A346's operators made public (less than four months ago) what Airbus had been trying so desperately to shield: i.e., the A346's piss-poor DR, relative to what was promised at EIS.

Try again.

[BOEING777X]

With that many A340 flying around I just can't believe that this is true for the airlines. Might be true for the A340-500 as it eventually didn't meet its design specifics but as for the A340-300, -600 it looks like the airlines are quite happy using them. Otherwise we would have LH 777s standing in MUC and not a large fleet of these hairdryer powered quads.

The fact AB undercharges for its airplanes has a lot to do with what an airline orders.

Take IB: The fleet renewal decision on a technical basis favoured the superior 777 family- but ended up with ex-Swiss ordered A346's.

Why? Because they were dirt cheap, half built and AB had no customer stupid enough to pay full price for it.

Why else hasnt CX decided to ever order, let alone renew the lease on the A346?

The dispatch reliabilty is FAR from reliable. You pay cheap, you get cheap- and thats exactly what the A330/A340 family are all about- And the A350 will be no different. Thats if AB finally sorts out which rendition actually becomes reality!

[mariner75]

Well, again, I'm not factoring in any possible advantages or any such stuff. Only about looks here! I know what the "forehead" is used for.

And about "Boeing can use their space wisely unlike Airbus.". Look at the cargo capacity of the 767 . The A300 can hold two containers side by side while the 767 can not. So much about "space being used wisely".Yes, well if you are smart you would no that the 767 has a smaller cabin diameter. The 767 can't fit LD3 side by side. The 767 holds 2 LD2's side by side. Boeing couldnt cram LD3's in there. Talking about using space wisely. They did by putting LD2's in there. And the 767 looks better. And it lasts longer than Airbuses. The 767 goes farther, and has sold 2 time as many as the A300.

[DAL767-400ER]

Actually, that would be Scotty; particularly considering (as you may have noticed...) the recent return of his now-4th incarnation on JP.net

Make that 7th incarnation (ScottysAir, N830MH, N831MH, N???AW, A380-900, 777-300 something).

[babypurin]

Make that 7th incarnation (ScottysAir, N830MH, N831MH, N???AW, A380-900, 777-300 something).

...what make's it even more remarkable is that the user put the same birthday in his profile 6 out of those 7 attempts.

[Kwashiorkor]

@Boeing777x: But the 777 freighter has to be bought brand new and the MD-11F can be had for quite low money as there are many standing around unused today. And what I always heard is that the MD-11F is a gorgeous freighter and the operators are very happy with it.

If the 757 is a superior freighter then why do I only see A300F/A310F flying around? For MUC that is.

As for the A350: If Boeing will launch a 787 freighter then why shouldn't Airbus launch an A350 freighter? They should be around the same diameter, no?

As for the aircraft being cheap: so what? This is handled like this everywhere. If the aircraft can't keep the promises then you have to sell it cheaper. Why not?

And the A350 will be no different.

Aaaah, and you know that?
@Concordeboy:

...ya might wanna think about that statement one more time champ

Apparently it doesn't fit SQ, so what? The 777 doesn't fit for Lufthansa, see?

what are you talking about? The A340 family is one of the worse sellers in modern aviation history.

I didn't find any numbers for the A340 family alone but with 908 orders for the A330/340 to date it isn't that bad I think. How about the 777? Didn't find any overall sales numbers on Boeing's site.

...which is exactly why several A343 airlines defected to the 777, why the 777NGs have never lost a customer (but the A340NG has lost multiple), and why the A346's operators made public (less than four months ago) what Airbus had been trying so desperately to shield: i.e., the A346's piss-poor DR, relative to what was promised at EIS.

And still there are airlines ordering it. Just taken from Airbus.com:

Air Mauritius expands its fleet with new Airbus A340-300E aircraft

@mariner:

Yes, well if you are smart you would no that the 767 has a smaller cabin diameter.

If you are smart you would assume that I know that... that may be the reason why we see so many 767 freighters around....

And the 767 looks better

Well, for you maybe.

And it lasts longer than Airbuses.

Ah yes, that's why we have so many A300/A310 still flying around.

But as for the 767/A300: they were never intended to compete each other. The 767 was built for transcontinental/intercontinental flights while the A300 for the purpose of hauling lots of people over short to medium distances. That's why LH loves them so much and is eagerly looking at a replacement for these aircraft. They don't exist for now, though. Maybe they'll buy the 787SR? We'll see.
But we are a bit off-topic now, aren't we?

[vojoboy]

Where to start

True but I guess that many passengers who fly longhaul would want to rather get that in one leg than having to deboard and reboard again. SQ might end up configuring their 777-200LR for more pax. As I said: Time will tell and I'm eager to see what SQ makes out of their 772LR.

Your point above only holds true for low-yield passengers hence you're missing the point of the current C-Market traffic which is currently targeting high-yield passengers. Most of these high-yield passengers would rather have a direct flight (and frequency) if possible as they want to get "comfortably" to their destination as soon as possible. Take the SIN-LAX O&D Market as an example. I would rather take the non-stop flight and shave off a few hours of stop (and reboarding) at either NRT or TPE and get to do my intended business ASAP.

Economy-level Super Saver miles? That sounds somehow complicated .

It means you can redeem an Executive Economy ticket using Economy-level Krisflyer miles.

Okay but what if the J and F cabin would be the same as on other aircraft? Would these cramped configurations still hold more passengers?

I would guess it would still hold the same number of Y pax.

As any widebody Airbus until the A380 enters service.

Dude, you're asking for too much from Airbii. The Lower deck Y seating config in the A380 is 3-4-3 and is 2-4-2 on the upper deck.

We as informed "airplane nuts" can easily avoid being on a plane one doesn't want to fly with by just choosing the "right" airline. But for the regular I-don't-care-what-plane-this-is-as-long-as-it-gets-me-where-I-want-passenger you are right.

I apologize if I find this comment a bit asinine. Of course consumers have a choice on what airline to fly. Unfortunately, its not just as simple as "Airplane nuts" vs. others. There are a lot of factors determining Customer Loyalty and its not because there is a "right" airline. The right airline for a some passengers might be the airline that offers cheapest fare.

No, I'm not only looking at cockpit commonality. It has to be an advantage, though, that the fuselage diameter is the same for any of the widebodies

The advantage of having the same fuselage diameter is in Airbus' manufacturing and doesnt affect the end airline customer that much.

that the one aisle aircraft all are the same plane with different lengths and that cockpits are that similar.

Its the same with the 737NG. One type rating for the family.

Just look at spare parts: isn't it great when you can use the same switch for, let's say the panel lighting, on all Airbus aircraft?

The A340 and A330 have parts commonality but not all . By the way, it looks like the A350 will only have <50% commonality with the A330

... but as for the A340-300, -600 it looks like the airlines are quite happy using them. Otherwise we would have LH 777s standing in MUC and not a large fleet of these hairdryer powered quads.

LH already commited to the A340 Program and they found that it would be counterproductive for them to replace this fleet with the 777. Unfortunately, a few airlines have pulled the trigger and have/are replacing the former with the later (SQ, AC and in a few years, AF).

But the 777 freighter has to be bought brand new and the MD-11F can be had for quite low money as there are many standing around unused today. And what I always heard is that the MD-11F is a gorgeous freighter and the operators are very happy with it.

Note that most MD-11F's are all converted from Pax versions. The reason why its so popular is because its cheap to acquire (no one wants the Pax version anyways) and Boeing currently doesnt have a 777ER SF conversion program. Once the demand for 777 Passenger planes go down, we'll probably see existing 772ER's converted into Freighters.

They should be around the same diameter, no?

Nope, the 787 is Wider.

As for the aircraft being cheap: so what? This is handled like this everywhere. If the aircraft can't keep the promises then you have to sell it cheaper. Why not?

Nothing wrong with it except that it has been outsold by the competitor aircraft charging a premium. Another is that Boeing is evolving its manufacturing techniques that will enable them to lower the price of its planes.

I didn't find any numbers for the A340 family alone but with 908 orders for the A330/340 to date it isn't that bad I think. How about the 777? Didn't find any overall sales numbers on Boeing's site.

You should only count the A340 family and the A330-300 vs. the 777 family. The A332 is not a direct 777 competitor (more of a 763ER competitor). Anywho, here is the Boeing site you were looking for: 777 Orders

And still there are airlines ordering it. Just taken from Airbus.com:

Barely

But as for the 767/A300: they were never intended to compete each other. The 767 was built for transcontinental/intercontinental flights while the A300 for the purpose of hauling lots of people over short to medium distances. That's why LH loves them so much and is eagerly looking at a replacement for these aircraft. They don't exist for now, though. Maybe they'll buy the 787SR? We'll see.
But we are a bit off-topic now, aren't we?

Yes they were. The 762 and 763 A-Models were built as A300B4 competitors. Boeing upped the stake by building the ER (B-Market) Models which were capable of flying Trans-atlantic. Airbus responded with the AB6 and the A310's (which essentially is still an A300) but both fell a bit short against its competitor in long haul flying. Both aircraft have found a good niche in regional high cargo flying though.

[mariner75]

Talking about airplanes sales now:

B777-693 vs. A340-384 Boeing wins!

B767-950 vs. A330-524 Boeing Wins!

These are the number of orders

[ConcordeBoy]

The 777 doesn't fit for Lufthansa, see?

....careful with that:
else you might get some reeeeaaaal bad news pretty soon (and I ain't just talking freighter)

And still there are airlines ordering it.

Hate to break this to you, but the Air Mauritius order was just Airbus desperately placing three cancelled former orders... the airline wanted A330s, and allegedly paid the same for the A340s that they would've for the smaller aircraft.