Wikiposts
Search
Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) If you are regularly a passenger on any airline then why not post your questions here?

B777 or Airbus 330/340

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 18th Oct 2007, 21:32
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,672
Likes: 0
Received 26 Likes on 21 Posts
Originally Posted by AVIONIQUE
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.
WHBM is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2007, 08:59
  #22 (permalink)  

Freight God
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: LS-R54A
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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).
Hunter58 is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2007, 09:07
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
V800 is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2007, 13:54
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
chornedsnorkack is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2007, 23:13
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
abL1011 is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2007, 22:01
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: london
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
10secondsurvey is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2007, 06:50
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 435
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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)
paulc is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2007, 08:47
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: i don't know
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
GMDS is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2007, 08:28
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
PVGSLF is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.