747 FOCAL
As I do not know the variant of the A340 that was involved in the SQ embarassment then I cannot possibly comment, however I am waiting for an answer to my original, non-confrontational, enquiry about the fuel burns of the B772 & B773.
I believe the A340 family were conceived to serve 'Long Thin' almost 'Pioneer' routes. Apparently VS put an A340 on a new route and as trade improves and demand for capacity increases they put a B744 on the route. Switching back to the A340 as needed. Many operators plummed for the A340 because the only available aircraft at the time for some of their routes was their B747's and they were haemorraging money when loads were light.
My employer operates the B772, B773, A332, A343, A345 and from 2006/7, the A380 and places the optimum aircraft for a particular route as best it can and does a pretty bloody good job at it too. For example a B773(Non-'ER') cannot go from DXB to JFK or SYD non-stop with a full load. The A345 does it easily. However the A340 cannot carry as much freight as a B777 on prime routes such as LHR, SIN or BOM. A full A332 can make money on a route that a 50% full B772/B773 would lose money on. Differant aeroplanes for differant needs.
Now when the B773ER's come on line then they probably could do JFK and SYD, freeing up the A345's for developing new routes. But on a dark and dirty night over the Polar Ice Cap, Siberia or the Himilayas in a Northern Hemisphere winter and you lost an engine would you rather be down to 1 engine 'Turning an Burning' or 3 engines 'Purring'. That's the difference between a 'LAND ASAP' and a 'CONTINUE'.
In essence all Airbus have done is take Boeings' Engineering marvels and given them flexibility to meet the needs of todays' 'BeanCounters' in the case of the A340 family and 1 step further in the case of the A380. I'm sure back in the late 60's while one side is saying 'It's too big! It'll never work' the other team were saying 'It will revolutionise air travel for the masses!' while both contemplated the arrival of the 1st B747. History repeats itself occasionally.
A colleague has answered my question for me. The fuel burns for the B772 & B773 are 7 & 8 tonnes/hour respectively, exactly the same as the A343 and A345 respectively so an operator has the flexibility to make direct, flexible tracks and does not need to comply with ETOPS constraints.
The A380 will, quite literally be ground breaking. It does make me wonder why the US chose to implement these NPRM's just as the A380 was emerging on to the world... Funny old thing... did somebody mention Concorde and 'new US noise level enforcements'.... I hope that history only does repeat itself....occasionally.
