B777-200ER versus A340-300

[Enzo]

...talking about economics in FsP, the two aircrafts mentioned above (777-200ER and A340-300) have nearly the same performance, pax
load and so on... so lets put the ETOPS apart...
...I have the 777-200ER, can someone tell me a reason why I should by a A340-300? Is there any advantage? Fuel consumptions or
so???
Just would like to know if there is any economic advantage for my company using a A340-300 instead of a B777-200ER...

[ivo]

I'm not exactly sure, but I can almost 100% garuantee you that the 777 is more fuel economic. It only has two engines which burn less
then the A340's four engines. Two engines will almost always burn less then four.The 777 is a long range, low fuel consumption, quiet
airliner.

[Enzo]

... yes, understand and agree to your opinion... but then tell me why the A340-300 (in MSFS) is still on the market ?
There must be a reason!
If there is not, I will go with the masess... but Boeing rulz

[ivo]

the A340 is on the market because Airbus pay money for it to be on the market. Since the 777 is taking almost all of the A340 sales,
Airbus have come up with the A340-5/600. They have longer range and more fuel effieciency.

[Enzo]

...interesting ideas... so, lets not talk about the market and politics... we are gaming here!
They nearly cost the same... they nearly have the same performance... in a question of FsP, which one is better economically
speaking?

[ivo]

I would personally choose the 777.

[Enzo]

....I would pefer the 777 as well, but the PSS has no wingviews... so I will continue with the Opensky 777...

[WBHoenig]

Same here... But I am a die-hard Boeing-er... many people on this board will say otherwise

[crowebird]

Its becuase we are the few americans on the forum

[WBHoenig]

Personally, I like it that way

[Jetflyer]

Well I've flown the A340 and 777-200LR extensively on FSP, and compared the fuel burn per nautical miles per passenger for each one
and the 777 wins by 100s of %.

PS: How many engines it has is inconsequential. The A340-300 (12400lb/hr) actually burn less fuel per hour than the 777 (13,800lb/hr but a) flies slower and b) seats fewer passengers (300 compared with 450). Those are figures I got from FSP and also the passenger capacity thing, well, in a given seating configuration, the 777 seats around 40-50% more passengers.



Post Edited ( 03-22-06 13:27 )

[teemuss]

ENZO og course pss 777 have wingwievs just by igfly walk&follow,then you have it trust me

[olseric]

If you want to take a few other factors into account, the A340 has a commonality with the other Airbus family. Thus, if an airline is trying to
chose between the A340 and the B777 and they already have pilots type-rated on the A320, which would you chose from a training-cost
standpoint?

[Propilot23k]

IM american..........

I would rather the A340-500 than the 300 but my Fleet is far from american :-D. http://millair.net/fleet.html

[Jetflyer]

olseric wrote:
If you want to take a few other factors into account, the A340 has a commonality with the other Airbus family. Thus, if an airline is trying to
chose between the A340 and the B777 and they already have pilots type-rated on the A320, which would you chose from a training-cost
standpoint?

The thread starter is talking about which he should fly on his simulator, therefore training costs don't apply I think I provided the answer
earlier. The 777 wins.