B777 or Airbus 330/340

[AVIONIQUE]

I am currently carrying out a comparison of the above aircraft as a university group project and would like to canvass passenger opinion on their preference.which is the best to fly in? do you choose airlines specifically because of the aircraft on that route? All other things being equal is one more comfortable than the other?
All comments gratefully received.
many thanks:ok:

[keltic]

I am not sure, but the B777 is wider and gives the feeling of more space.

[MrSoft]

Both great planes but 330 / 340 for me every time. 777 may be wider, but 2-4-2 in the 'bus FEELS much more spacious to me than 3-4-3 in a 7 (Emirates config).

Also, call me a softie, but that tooth-loosening resonance during 777 start-up doesn't thrill me.

Yes, it would affect my choice of carrier.

[keltic]

Well, I love the A330 too. I think the choice varies according to the pitch, configuration, in flight amenities, lightening....and so on, in each airline.

[rasobey]

Well Keltic I think you're the only person who likes lightening in the cabin :) Personally I prefer it whilst I'm on the ground or even at home.

As to the OP question, I've flown on neither type. But if I did have a preference, it would almost certainly affect my choice of carrier. I prefer a Bus to Boeing for starters.

[Pax Vobiscum]

Can't help with your comparison as the only wide-bodied Airbuses I've flown in have been 300/310s. However, I can't imagine a situation in which the aircraft would influence my choice of airline (at least, not the choice between Airbus or Boeing). Seat pitch and width (which may influence choice) can vary just as much between airlines using the same aircraft as those flying differing types.

I would bet that most pax (those who don't visit PPRuNe!) wouldn't be able to tell you if they were on a 747 or 757, let alone a Boeing or an Airbus.

[keltic]

Sorry for my English :) I hate it too. I mean ilumination. Sometimes it makes cabin more roomy. Some passengers feel more confident with the A340 for it having four engine instead of two.

[Desert Diner]

From an economy pax perspective, the more important issue is seat configuration. 2-4-2 vs. 3-3-3. Both configurations are in both types of planes. Unfortunately the 3-3-3 seems to feel a bit more clausterphobic.

As for flying them as a pax, they are much the same. You may experience a bit of the roller-coaster effect if you are sitting in the rear of a 777-300 or a 340-600 but thats about it.

The real difference only effect airline economics.

[blaggerman]

In economy, I prefer Airbus 2-4-2 over 777 3-3-3 (or 3-4-3 if they are cramming them in). With 2-4-2, at the very worst you are 1 seat away from the aisle.

But really, I think the seat layout is the last factor that will affect choice. I'd figure on price, flight times, flight duration including connections, elite seat selection (good seats reserved for elites, preselection online, including exit rows), mileage earning, in-seat video, ease of connections at transfer airports, chances of my bags making the connection with the airport/airline, etc., etc.

So all things being equal, I'd pick Airbus. But in reality, all things are never equal, so the choice will never be a factor.

[mutt]

lightening

Had a demonstration of "cabin mood" lighting last week in the A350 mockup, wonderful concept where the cabin can change to any colour to suit time of day plus the mood that the airline wants to create.

Much better than the present system of OFF ON DIM....:):)

OH yea, the infrared internet keyboards in the table top and the wireless phone charges were also interesting.

Mutt

[10secondsurvey]

Over water? The A340. It has 4 engines, the others have two. Big difference in my book, don't care what FAA/CAA/'experts' say, about 2 engines being just as safe as 4.

If 4 engines cost the same (in all ways) as two, I guarantee ALL airlines would fly with 4 engines, and all long haul jets would be built with 4.

One day, a large jet with two engines on ETOPS 180/207 or it's current equivalent, will come down mid - pacific with twin engine failure. I don't intend being on that plane.

[praa]

I like a window seat for the view so I prefer the 2-4-2 seating on a A330/340.
I flew BA to Canada last last year. The outward journey was on a B777. Nice plane and spacious looking but it doesn't feel that way when you're hemmed in by two other people. The journey back was on an old B767 which I wasn't looking forward to. However, the seats were new, the seat back video screen was huge and I swear there was more legroom. The 2-3-2 layout seemed an optimal combination of general roominess and easy accessibility.
Other factors like price, routing and frequent flier points might affect my booking decisions more but the seating layout in economy will also play a role. Of course, give me an upgrade on long haul and I'll be willing to fly any aircraft...

[WHBM]

The 777 is 9-across, the A330/340 is 8-across. Some find the latter arrangement is better, as there is no chance of middle-seating at all.

Some 777 operators lay it out as 2-5-2, others as 3-3-3, and it seems different passengers have different preferences. For me it's 2-5-2 every time as from a window seat I only have one person next to me (hopefully Mrs WHBM :) ) rather than two. You have to be unlucky to get that middle of five, but it has happened to me when travelling solo and it is indeed unpleasant.

Emirates at least do 10-across in the 777, I haven't experienced that myself I am glad to say.

For me the real issue between the two types, given that I am invariably in Y class and that I always like a window seat when possible, is that the 777 in the cruise is noisier aft of the engines than the Airbus. It really is noticeable and on overnight flights is significant. It is even worse than the 747. I don't know the reason, possibly the engines on the 777 are set closer to the fuselage than on the A330. The A340 is supremely quiet, especially in the descent - being on Cathay A340s dropping down with a whisper into Sydney in the early morning sunrise is always a real pleasure.

[mphysflier]

Having flown both types in biz class, I reckon I enjoyed the A340 more. It seemed more comfortable with the mood lighting and quieter than the 777. Of course, the aerogeek in me also loved watching the take-off and landing on the A340's "nose-cam"!

[chornedsnorkack]

I like a window seat for the view so I prefer the 2-4-2 seating on a A330/340.
I flew BA to Canada last last year. The outward journey was on a B777. Nice plane and spacious looking but it doesn't feel that way when you're hemmed in by two other people. The journey back was on an old B767 which I wasn't looking forward to. However, the seats were new, the seat back video screen was huge and I swear there was more legroom. The 2-3-2 layout seemed an optimal combination of general roominess and easy accessibility.

Yes. That is the big advantage of 767 over 330, and 330 over 777. Narrower cabin.

Every plane, no matter how wide or narrow, has two sidewalls and therefore two window seats. Every widebody, whether it is as narrow as 767 or as wide as 380, has 2 aisles and therefore 4 aisle seats. So, a total of 6 window and aisle seats.

All other seats are necessarily middle seats. So, 767 with 7 abreast has 1 middle seat in a row of 7, 330 has 2 middle seats in a row of 8, 777 has 3 middle seats in a row of 9 and 747 has 4 middle seats in a row of 10.

[840]

I've never flown on a 777, although I have a few 330 and 340 flights under my belt.

But in general, aircraft type matters little when I choose my flights.

In order, I'd say my criteria are:

Direct flight
Cost of flight
Convenient Departure time
An airline where I have previously had good service
An airline where I get frequent flyer privileges (more getting lounge access than accumulating points)
Type of aircraft


That's not to say I don't notice aircraft differences. I prefer a 737NG or A32X to a 737-500 for example. The seats towards the back of the 737-500 seemed to get a hell of a lot narrower. But, it's a long way down in the list of how I make my decision.

[SLF3]

Assume like for like in economy, 2-4-2 Bus versus 3-3-3 777 (the bus is narrower). Subjectively, the bus seats are wider. The bus is slower (significant on a flight from Hong Kong) and much quieter (as noted above). Other than that, it is down to the airline.

Methinks Airbus do the width thing deliberately - the A320 series is six inches wider than the 737, and I would hazard a guess that the 350XWB will be wider than the Dreamliner.

Does this influence my choice of flight - yes, but I think I am in the minority.

[AVIONIQUE]

Fantasic responses guys,I am really gratefull to all.Seems that those dreaded stuck in the middle seats are a big factor.Interesting also on the 2 vs 4 engine preference across those big oceans,it certainly gets you thinking. It would appear that there is no real out and out favourite anyway and in that respect you mirror the pilots who i have also canvassed opinion on.Will take it all on board anyway,keep them coming!
:ok:

[jeanyqua]

Hi..have flown biz class in 777 ,and the 330.
In the 777,i thought it was roomier,in 1A,than the 330.
The cabin wall was too curved on the 330,and i felt it was closing in on me.

[jeanyqua]

Just thinking,after i posted,i liked the seats on the emirates flight...think it was a 340...?.(emirates biz)...seemed to be more leg room too,than Qatar.
Singapore raffles was the best though...true flat bed.:)

[WHBM]

It would appear that there is no real out and out favourite anyway
I don't know if I read the comments that way. Those answering the original question directly and comparing both types seem to be notably favouring the Airbus product over the Boeing one.

However the new world seems to be heading for B787 vs A350 and B777-300 vs A380, in which case the Boeing product will be smaller in both cases, and that is what the discussion seems to favour. What is good is that there is a choice of size provided by the different manufacturers, unlike the days of the DC10 vs L1011 which both came out the same size.

Chornedsnorkack is incorrect to say that all widebodies have two sidewalls and two aisles. The A380 has four sidewalls and three aisles.

[Hunter58]

That would be 4 sidewalls and 4 aisles on the A380...

To the aircraft. Having flown 330/340 and 777 in C-Class, fortunately sponsored by employer, I have a preference for the Airbusses. When possible (unfortunaley that is very seldom) I try to get on one.

I see two major problems on the T7 (at least as configured by the airline I typically have to fly them with) are the famous middle seat in C-Class. It is appropriately labeld as the F-Seat since everyone coming on board and discovering it is the middle seat will say ' Fu**!'). The 330/340 usually don't have a middle seat in C-Class.

The other inconveniance is that every time I had to fly on a 777 I end up having a cold since the airconditioning system seems to like to blow ice cold air down on you at night. That is a feature I still have to experience on an Airbus.

The advantage of a 777 going to/from Asia is that they are a tad faster (30 minutish), while on the North Atlantic that is the 15 to 20 minutes more sleep you would have needed that just are missing (usually given back in the hold, but not in a nice reclined sleeping position).

[V800]

In economy I prefer the 2-4-2 arrangement over 3-3-3 or 3-4-3 as I nearly always go for the window seat.

No doubt some airlines will be reading this and charging more to sit upstairs on the A380.

[chornedsnorkack]

Chornedsnorkack is incorrect to say that all widebodies have two sidewalls and two aisles. The A380 has four sidewalls and three aisles.

Thanks for reminding, though it is 747 which has 4 sidewalls and 3 aisles. Mind you, it means that only 10 window and aisle seats combined, out of 16. Whereas A380 has 4 sidewalls and 4 aisles, so 12 window and aisle seats combined, out of 18. A380 and B747 have the same number of middle seats, and A380 has more window and aisle seats.

[abL1011]

Having travelled in economy with Emirates earlier this year on A330, A345 and B773 ER and with other airlines on the B777.

I prefer the 2-4-2 layout of the Airbus to the 3-4-3, 3-3-3, 2-5-2 layout of the the B777.

The cabin of the Airbus aircraft are noticably quieter than the B777.

The biggest issue in economy though is the seat pitch. On EK's A345 the seat pitch is unbearable, yet on their B773ER the 34" pitch is excellent.

So, it's more to do with the way the airlines fit the cabin out than the aircraft.

[10secondsurvey]

Avionique,

It is clear from my previous post that as a frequent flyer, I have a strong preference in the 4 engine vs. 2 engine argument over say, the pacific.

It is also interesting, that in the past I've also watched from afar the same point debated by professional pilots on the same subject, looking at the statistical arguments, such as, if one engine fails, is it more or less probable the other will fail, bearing in mind that all such aircraft must be able to take off AND climb after a single engine failure with a full load.

But in reality, aside from the opinion of a frequent flyer who tends to take an unhealthy interest (like many ff's) in the best seat in club, and is 12A as good as 12F etc... I do believe most of the general flying public do not understand the implications when flying on a twin jet over large stretches of water. If they did, would things be different?

ETOPS can (and does) mean that following a single engine failure on a twin jet, it may be two and a half hours before a pilot can reach his nearest alternate airport. Imagine being on such a jet, with a known engine problem, and only one engine working, and having to fly for a further two and a half hours (up to 180/207 minutes) to reach an airport. Many people say it's no more dangerous than being on say a 4engine jet, with one engine out, and as I'm not an expert, I am just giving a pax opinion. In reality, whenever I can, even going LHR to JFK, I do actually seek out 4 engine operated flights. I used to like Virgin because of this, but now it looks like they are going to eventually shift to 2 engine dreamliners on east coast flights. For very long flights, I would do everything in my power to get a 4 engined jet, even choosing to change airline or date of travel.

I'm actually surprised more people do not think it is important.

[paulc]

Have flown both Airbus & 777 long haul and I in all honesty do not mind either. The 777 in 3-3-3 layout on Continental that I had was fine as the middle seat was left empty for both outward and return legs - would have been less so if taken. EK 3-4-3 layout is not something to look forward to though. On the other hand 2-5-2 on United I had someone sat next to me on both long haul legs. Re 4 or 2 engines again this is determined largely by destination as for example most flights to the USA from UK are only served by twins (esp if flying with AA/DL/CO/UA/NW) The 4 engine option to the USA is Virgin or BA (certain destinations only)

[GMDS]

For very long flights, I would do everything in my power to get a 4 engined jet, even choosing to change airline or date of travel.

I'm actually surprised more people do not think it is important.


10sec:
You seem to understand what implication a engine failure has on a twin, landing within maximum 180/207 minutes. A 4 engine jet however may continue it's journey after a such, and more managers push pilots to do so than not.
Now if you take your other argument into consideration, namely "if one of them fails the other will as well", and if you extend this argument to all four, which jet would you prefer to sit in: The twin who WILL go and land within the next three hours, or the 4hauler who will have CONTINUED over the Pacific, Himalaya or North Pole, far away from any alternate??


Happy flying

GMDS

[PVGSLF]

I regularly fly on both 777 and 330/340 in most classes, and in Economy I'd certainly plump for the 2-4-2 layout of the Bus. In Business class I'm not fussed, the 777 seems more "robust" in turbulance but the 330/340 is significantly quieter in cruise.