Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well it has the longest recorded distance by a long shot for a nonstop flight for a commercial aircraft - 21,602km, from Hong Kong to London Heathrow- that's something. Seems to be very much the safe, workhorse wide body in the skies these days.
Aren't the A340 only outside the US?
It should be noted that the flight you reference was made the long way -- instead of taking the normal route over Eurasia, it crossed the Pacific, the United States, then the Atlantic. 13,442 miles in 22 hours 43 minutes.
It should be noted that the flight you reference was made the long way -- instead of taking the normal route over Eurasia, it crossed the Pacific, the United States, then the Atlantic. 13,442 miles in 22 hours 43 minutes.
From New York or Toronto ... to Hong Kong or Tokyo, do they ALWAYS go over the Pacific, or over the Atlantic (somewhat polar, either way, I'm sure)? From LA and SF, I already KNOW the answer.
From New York or Toronto ... to Hong Kong or Tokyo, do they ALWAYS go over the Pacific, or over the Atlantic (somewhat polar, either way, I'm sure)? From LA and SF, I already KNOW the answer.
From JFK - NRT (tokyo), plane flies north over Alaska, then south through Korea
That's true, but in an A340, you will never be more than 1 seat away from an aisle. I can't think of an operator who configures economy in an A340 as anything other than 2-4-2. That's what makes the B777 so economically attractive for the operator ... one way or another, you shove 9 across in the back cabin.
And some even put 10-abreast in economy class in a 777. I think Air France and Emirates do that. That would be cramped!
Absolutelly not true that a four-engined jet uses twice as much fuel as a twin. Each engine on a quad is smaller, and more fuel effiecient than the engines on a twin. Also by design the twin is more "overpowered" than a quad because both must be able to contiue the t/o with one engine inop meaing on 50% power remaining for a twin compared to 75% for a quad.
This is wrong. 2 Engines aren't twice as efficient as 4, but they are more efficient. Each independent engine must carry along with it individual support systems--accessory gearbox, starter, anti-ice/cooling/customer bleed air ducting, nacelle and supporting structure, fuel lines, casing, cowling, etc. To simplify the idea; one large pipe can carry the same amount of fluid as two smaller pipes with much less material and weight.
Assuming the same level of technology (maximum turbine nozzle/blade/lining temperature, lightweight materials, etc.) a larger engine will have better Specific Fuel Consumption than a smaller one; generating more thrust per pound of fuel consumed. One big driver of this is that larger, more powerful, engines can drive a bigger fan with a bigger bypass ratio, and your bypass air is where you get all your cheap thrust from. Core air isn't used for much more than to spin the fan on big engines, and this results in a big improvement in fuel efficiency.
The problems are with OEI conditions and ground clearance on the big engines.
I have also heard, no proof backing it up, but revenue cargo, surpasses or nearly surpasses revenue made form passengers on alot of flights in the 777.
I wouldn't be surprised - depends on the routes. When I worked in Shanghai in 1994, and met the UA station manager at a AmCham reception, he told me that they made the bulk of their ex-SHA revenue from cargo - passenger revenue was just icing on the cake, a bonus.
It's a large, safe, and comfortable aircraft. Having experienced it in economy, premium econ, business, and first across multiple airlines, it's a solid performer. As a relatively new aircraft flying high profile routes, it tends to have the latest and greatest in terms of seats and AVOD. I don't see a disadvantage vs a 747, TBH. Most wax poetic about that aircraft because it was te latest and greatest when they came of age in the early 70s. Now, they are as run down as their favourite plane. IMO, there are lots and lots of old 747s with configurations that are torturous.
Well, the 747 version in service, the 747-400, isn't all that old, and planes can be kept flying for a really long time with refits (the USAF is still flying 50-year old B-52s). Configurations/cabin seats can and are often updated by airlines. However, these days 747s are getting retired by major airlines for one major reason - rising fuel costs. often in favor of the 777, because the Triple Seven can carry nearly as many passengers over long distances but use less fuel.
SQ and JL have already retired all of their 747s from service. AF, CX, NH are all planning to retire their 747s as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
