Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

B772LR vs. A345

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    ...also, keep in mind that the lesser fuselage diameter is one of the two primary reasons that Airbus wouldn't even dream about offering an A340 Freighter.
    Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

    Check it out!

    Comment


    • #32
      We are talking about different things here:

      passenger comfort and airline profit. I was only talking about passengers when I said that the 2-4-2 is better than anything on the 777. If two identical flights would be offered with a 777 or 340 I would take the 340 without further reflection.

      Also think about chosing the 19 hour flight with Singapore Airlines and being cramped in the tube with 300 other people in a standard economy seating. No way! I would rather pay the price for their permium service and have a spacious layout instead. I wonder if the 772LR will have standard seating on the long runs. If so, I think passengers will complain about that really quick. I can't even imagine having to sit some 20 hours in a 3-3-3 or 3-4-3 compartment!

      So, it's a mismatch of different priorities: passenger comfort and profit. There has to be a compromise, though.
      I don't care about airline profit, though, as long as it's enough to keep the A340 in the fleet. And apparently it is.


      The Tupolev Tu-114.
      World speed record holder for turboprop aircraft.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Kwashiorkor
        I don't care about airline profit, though, as long as it's enough to keep the A340 in the fleet. And apparently it is.
        If you are talking about SQ, that's only temporary .
        Also, I doubt that SQ will actually be putting 300 seats on the 772LR. Seeing as how they have 2-3-2 on their A345s, I could very well imagine they could go with a 2-4-2 layout on the 772LR, still get in some 250 pax, and a full belly of cargo as well.

        Originally posted by ConcordeBoy
        ...though you're probably going to get nailed here for the psuedo-spam advertisement; cute forum-- figured I'd join.
        You really do sign up on every aviation forum on the net, don't you .

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Kwashiorkor
          We are talking about different things here:

          passenger comfort and airline profit. I was only talking about passengers when I said that the 2-4-2 is better than anything on the 777. If two identical flights would be offered with a 777 or 340 I would take the 340 without further reflection.
          There was a thread in another forum that gave a good discussion on Airlines' and the manufacturer's research on seating arrangements. You'll be surprised how a 2-4-2 config is actually not as optimal as a 3-3-3 arrangement (and also explains why Boeing is also pushing for a possible 3-2-3 arrangement on the 787). Basically the gist is that most planes dont leave full (i.e. all seats occupied) and for typical load factors, a 3-3-3 or a 3-2-3 arrangement will almost always have an empty middle seat. A 2-4-2 arrangement however is favorable given a full plane.

          I've taken a lot of intra-Asia flights myself on 3-3-3 configured 777's (CX and SQ in particular) and I've almost always had an empty middle seat beside me. Personally, I'd rather be sitting in a 777/747 window seat than in a Airbus widebody window seat because of the way the walls start to close in on you at around shoulder level. Plus, a 3-3-3 configured 777 has a greater seat width than a 2-4-2 A340.


          Originally posted by Kwashiorkor
          Also think about chosing the 19 hour flight with Singapore Airlines and being cramped in the tube with 300 other people in a standard economy seating. No way! I would rather pay the price for their permium service and have a spacious layout instead. I wonder if the 772LR will have standard seating on the long runs. If so, I think passengers will complain about that really quick. I can't even imagine having to sit some 20 hours in a 3-3-3 or 3-4-3 compartment!
          OK.. first of all, its the airlines that decide whether to offer premium seating or not but anyways, SQ decided to offer premium seating to try and "stimulate" a C-Market route. When (not if ) SQ uses the 777LR for its C-Market routes, you'll probably see the same premium offerings (albeit a 2-4-2 arrangement in Executive Economy) with still a reduced density (probably at around 200 - 220 pax) and possibly a few of the new first class seats.

          Originally posted by Kwashiorkor
          So, it's a mismatch of different priorities: passenger comfort and profit. There has to be a compromise, though.
          Yes there is always a compromise. If you want more space, the airline will charge you a premium for it.
          A good example of compromise for passenger comfort and profit would be Emirates.
        • Even though Airbus has been "advertising" how you dont have a middle seat in Business Class on an Airbus widebody, EK has configured its A330's J seats to 2-3-2.

        • Economy seats on EK's 777's are configured 3-4-3. Although it is a tight squeeze for a 777 (seat widths are the same as an A340 2-4-2 config), the seat pitch is around 34" which is a luxury in Y.


        • Originally posted by Kwashiorkor
          I don't care about airline profit, though, as long as it's enough to keep the A340 in the fleet. And apparently it is.
          That's a shame though cause if the airline doesnt make a profit, they wont be in business for long. The A340 is still around because it is a competent aircraft for its designed mission (i.e. good cargo, good range, reasonable fuel burn) and its acquisition costs are lower than its competitor.
        adaequatio rei et intellectus

        Comment


        • #35
          Originally posted by DAL767-400ER
          You really do sign up on every aviation forum on the net, don't you
          Actually, that would be Scotty; particularly considering (as you may have noticed...) the recent return of his now-4th incarnation on JP.net
          Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

          Check it out!

          Comment


          • #36
            Originally posted by ConcordeBoy
            ...also, keep in mind that the lesser fuselage diameter is one of the two primary reasons that Airbus wouldn't even dream about offering an A340 Freighter.
            A freighter with perhaps 75t capability powered by 4 hairdryers is hardly going to be efficient
            ...Because The Sky Is A Canvas, Waiting For A Masterpiece...


            Click

            Comment


            • #37
              Maybe Boeing should demonstrate the 777F's lifting capabilities by attaching an A340 to its back and flying around the world for 24hrs.
              "If it weren't for the 777LR, I would love the A345"






              Comment


              • #38
                Originally posted by ConcordeBoy
                Actually, that would be Scotty; particularly considering (as you may have noticed...) the recent return of his now-4th incarnation on JP.net
                What's his latest incarnation? A320something?

                Originally posted by BOEING777X
                A freighter with perhaps 75t capability powered by 4 hairdryers is hardly going to be efficient
                nor will a freighter powered by 4 Trent 500's
                adaequatio rei et intellectus

                Comment


                • #39
                  @DAL767-400ER: Well, that might be a different story then. But in the particular case of the A340-500 the somewhat falling short of its specifications did well for passenger comfort.

                  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.

                  Because this is what American Airlines is doing with their 777s at the moment. I figured out that if I would have to go to the US I would do everything to get on an American 777 because of their generous pitch in economy. But what do I read on Seatguru? This pitch is about to disappear until the end of this year as they are stuffing in more seats. Well, that's another potential passenger lost! I just can't believe that Singapore Airlines won't do the same. Time will tell I think. Didn't the B747 have some bars at introduction ? Now, where are they? Right, traded in for more seats!



                  @vojoboy: 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. 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. Why not do something like 2-2-2-2? That would be a great arrangement .

                  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?

                  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?

                  And as I ment: the A340 actually makes good money otherwise the airlines would trade it in for some Boeings in no time. But it looks like the overall product (say commonality) matches up for some shortcomings of the aircraft themselves.

                  @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?

                  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.

                  Nothing beats a Russian beast, though .


                  The Tupolev Tu-114.
                  World speed record holder for turboprop aircraft.

                  Comment


                  • #40
                    Originally posted by Kwashiorkor
                    But the A340-500 is some great plane
                    What's so great about:
                    • The fact that Airbus hasn't been able to sell more than 30 of them in eight years, but Boeing's been able to do that with the 77C in 4 months?
                    • The fact that the A345 took a year longer than expected to get EIS?
                    • The fact that the wing came out several tons heavier than expected?
                    • The fact that the aircraft still has yet to reach its promised range/payload specs?
                    • The fact that the aircraft has been flying for nearly two years, but has ~still~ not reached is promised DR at service entry?
                    • or, the fact that two of its four operators have already made public their desire to order its superior competitor?
                    ....I'd really like to know.
                    Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

                    Check it out!

                    Comment


                    • #41
                      @Concordeboy: I know you like to bash Airbus for about everything but in the last paragraph I was just talking about the looks. And there Airbus made everything right .


                      The Tupolev Tu-114.
                      World speed record holder for turboprop aircraft.

                      Comment


                      • #42
                        Originally posted by Kwashiorkor
                        @Concordeboy: I know you like to bash Airbus for about everything
                        ...you've apparently never seen my comments on the A32x nor A330 then :rolleyes:

                        Originally posted by Kwashiorkor
                        but in the last paragraph I was just talking about the looks. And there Airbus made everything right
                        You're joking right?

                        The thing's a quad, it's got a ridiculous-looking (and obstructive) pair of "training wheels", a wing root that's far too big (and heavy) for its fuselage, the list goes on and on
                        Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

                        Check it out!

                        Comment


                        • #43
                          ...you've apparently never seen my comments on the A32x nor A330 then :rolleyes:
                          I'm quite new here, you know and every second post I read from you is bashing Airbus. Just what I saw until now.

                          And as for the second part of your post: well, this is all about personal preferences. I like quads a lot and the A340-500 looks great IN MY opinion. Why don't you just leave it that way?

                          For me the 777 also looks strange at some places: the forehead challenges the A380, it looks like a bumble-bee when looking straight onto her and it doesn't look so smooth like the A340 line. Again this is my opinion.

                          If it weren't for the enormous engines it would be a very boring sight to see.


                          The Tupolev Tu-114.
                          World speed record holder for turboprop aircraft.

                          Comment


                          • #44
                            Originally posted by Kwashiorkor
                            For me the 777 also looks strange at some places: the forehead challenges the A380
                            True that the 777 has a forehead to rival Tyra Banks'....

                            ...but unlike the A380 (or Tyra Banks for that matter ), the T7's forehead gives it a very effective advantage over its competition; so I guess I can live with that
                            Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
                            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

                            Check it out!

                            Comment


                            • #45
                              See, it's as easy as that. Everybody has his/her own opinion and aesthetical preferences.

                              But I don't like big foreheads . And therefore I also don't like the A380 aesthetically. The only thing I like about it is its size and the engines.


                              The Tupolev Tu-114.
                              World speed record holder for turboprop aircraft.

                              Comment

                              • Working...
                                X