A340

[Old fella]

Why did AC unload all of the A340's and keep the B767. Is there that much of a difference in operations ie range vs payload, landing distances, fuel savings with 4 vs 2 engines.. I thought i did read somewhere the A340-200 series were dissappointing performers but the 500series were better.

[Rockie]

The 340's went because the 777 was coming in. It has two engines instead of four, is bigger and makes up in range what the 340-200 lacked. The 500's had good range and performance, but they carried fewer passengers and burned 40% more gas than the 200 (the price you pay for having real engines instead of four hair dryers I guess).

The 330 has good capacity and good range between the 767 and the 777, and the 767's are in the process of leaving to be replaced by the 787 if Boeing ever gets their act together.

[roger.roger]

I thought it was AC that requested their delay in delivery for the 87's and haven't most of the 777's been sold?

[ZBBYLW]

AC operated the 340-300 not the 200 in adition to the 340-500 (which had long range and was used on YYZ-HKG). AC made an order for the 787/777 combo and as such was going to replace all of the Airbus wide body fleet at some point. The 330s are great for YYC-FRA/LHR and YUL-GVA etc... And that is where this bird is still used. The 333s will eventually get replaced by the 787s when they come. The 340s were taken out by the 777-200LRs (77L) and the 777-300ERs (77W). Even though the 77W has alot more seats then the 340s they have been used to replace them as the uplift capacity on them are amazing (and AC has certain routes that make a killing in Cargo). The 77Ls work for AC on longer routes. YVR-SYD and YYZ-HKG are the two main routes that needed it. Interestingly enough AC is only one of I believe two Airlines to have the GE90-115Bs on their 77Ls (which is the same on the bigger 77W).

Long story short as much as I thought the 343s were much more comfortable aircraft, and I liked it the bean counters at AC much prefer the 777s.

[roger.roger]

but AC has sold there 777's for cash flow so no ones too sure how long those are going to be here

[Rockie]

but AC has sold there 777's for cash flow so no ones too sure how long those are going to be here

Buying and selling airplanes, and operating airplanes are two different things. It would be strange indeed to get rid of them when they just got them.

[Old fella]

What is the A340 like to fly. I know it has the usual Airbus side stick but being larger with 4 fans is it much different than say the A319/320 or even the well used 767. Do pilots ever give any impressions on Airbus saying they are glad to be away from this side stick when they transition to the B777 or(as I suspect) it(A340) is just another type with different systems and time on type just adds up to more pensionable time!!!!!!

I know, I am full of questions and y'all are thinking I am full of shit as well

[Rockie]

It's an airplane Old Fella. I'm sure you've been around long enough to know each one has its virtues as well as warts. But the big Airbus's are very nice machines in almost every respect.

[B767300]

Believe it or not but most pilots who have flown airbus for more than a year or two don't enjoy the control column in the B767 or B777 but you get used to it. If and when you go back on Airbus its really nice to get rid of that annoying, vision blocking wheel...
FWIW

[whiteguy]

but AC has sold there 777's for cash flow so no ones too sure how long those are going to be here

Some of the B777 have been sold to leasing companies but then leased directly back to AC for 10-12 years. They're not leaving AC anytime soon.

[bmc]

The 330s are great for YYC-FRA/LHR and YUL-GVA etc... And that is where this bird is still used. .

YUL-GVA doesn't start until June 2009. Last I heard it's supposed to be a B767. Has that been changed now?

Still doubtin that'll happen.

[complexintentions]

@ ZBBYLW,

Interesting, I didn't know AC uses GE90-115B's on the -200LR's. Do you know why? Just curious if they are using higher MTOW's or something.

@oldfella,

Never flew the Airbus, but have a lot of colleagues who have moved both directions to and from each fleet and from what I'm told the 340 handles very similarly to the 330, almost impossible to tell you are on it other than the extra two thrust levers. The guys seem to like the sidestick and have no problem with it but I have yet to meet one Boeing pilot in our company who was yearning to fly the Bus. There are good ideas from each camp that could (and have been) copied but overall I prefer the Boeing philosophy.

As far as the economics of 2 vs 4, the only time 4 MIGHT be more economical is when an ETOPS requirement might necessitate a longer routing for a twin. But the B777 will kill almost anything with more engines. For example on DXB-JFK, a 380 will burn about 60 tons more fuel to carry about 100 more pax. And because of the double deck the cargo hold space is much reduced. The B777 will take over 400 pax and 20 tons of cargo, on two engines.

[bmc]

Curious to know what the ETOPS is at EK for the 777-300.

[c170b53]

Same motor but EEC programming plug lowers the 200 to 110 KLBS

[tica]

EK B777 207 min.

[bmc]

EK B777 207 min.

I think that's higher than CX. I remember they were 192 min.

I can't fathom 3 hours single engine in B777. My nads are to small I guess.

[ZBBYLW]

@ ZBBYLW,

Interesting, I didn't know AC uses GE90-115B's on the -200LR's. Do you know why? Just curious if they are using higher MTOW's or something.

Yes both AC and EK actually do this. There are a few different things to consider though, the 115s on the 200 may actually increase the available runway distance required for take off because the Vmcg on the airplane with the higher thrust may actually be higher. I believe the 115s are on there just because it can make life easier for AC to have 1 engine configuration (note: the 110 and the 115 is physically the same except for a "plug"). Having only the 115s they could have the same paper work etc... If they had the 110s, while cheaper to operate it might be more of a head ache for AC.

[A330]

180 min is the normal max etops, 207 min came up for a specific route crossing the southern pacific ocean, not used by any airline at this time as far as I know....