Read the forum code of contact
By: - 2nd June 2005 at 04:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This might help you
By: - 2nd June 2005 at 14:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for trying, but unfortunately it only says standard 3 class passenger layouts (380 for A340-600 for example).
I wonder why I can't seem to find this info....
By: - 2nd June 2005 at 14:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Max passenger seating on the A340-300 is 440. The A340-600 has also been certified as 440 seats as there are no plans for anyone to operate with any more than that. If the need arose then Airbus could up the limit with further testing.
By: - 3rd June 2005 at 03:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You mean to tell me the A340-600 is only rated for carrying up to 440 people?
What if any were ever ordered for East Asian Domestic routes where the number of people per plane has to be huge. 747-400's operating in that role carry up to 568 people.
Surely the A340-600 can at least carry 500?
440 for the -300 sounds right, but the -500 and -600? And what about the -200?
P.S. Aren't both models of the A330 rated for up to 440 pax?
By: - 3rd June 2005 at 03:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
744 can carry 678 people.
By: - 3rd June 2005 at 04:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Qantas established a world record by evacuating 673 passengers on one of its 742 flights from Darwin after the city was devastated by Cyclone Tracy in 1974
By: - 3rd June 2005 at 22:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You mean to tell me the A340-600 is only rated for carrying up to 440 people?What if any were ever ordered for East Asian Domestic routes where the number of people per plane has to be huge. 747-400's operating in that role carry up to 568 people.
Surely the A340-600 can at least carry 500?
440 for the -300 sounds right, but the -500 and -600? And what about the -200?
P.S. Aren't both models of the A330 rated for up to 440 pax?
Phantom - have you considered reading the posts above before replying? :p
By: - 3rd June 2005 at 22:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Qantas established a world record by evacuating 673 passengers on one of its 742 flights from Darwin after the city was devastated by Cyclone Tracy in 1974
I thought the world record was 1050 or so on a 747 with 2 baby's born en-route.
Was some sort of evactuation
By: - 3rd June 2005 at 22:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I thought the world record was 1050 or so on a 747 with 2 baby's born en-route.Yeah, that was an El Al flight, evacuating Jews from Addis Ababa back in the 80's, I believe.Was some sort of evactuation
By: - 4th June 2005 at 03:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm not talking world records here. Just maximum passenger load for practical purposes (i.e. Japanese Domestic routes where the 744 maxes out at 568).
And yes I read all the posts, but I find it hard to believe an airplane that is nearly 250 feet long can only carry up to 440 passengers. The 777-300 can carry up to 550!
By: - 4th June 2005 at 09:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And yes I read all the posts, but I find it hard to believe an airplane that is nearly 250 feet long can only carry up to 440 passengers. The 777-300 can carry up to 550!
There's always a tradeoff between number of seats and amount of fuel. Where the 777-300 fly Los Angeles - Paris the A340-500 fly Los Angeles - Singapore. Here's some more info:
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=28 (A340-500/600)
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=107 (777-300)
regards,
Cliff
By: - 4th June 2005 at 11:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm not talking world records here. Just maximum passenger load for practical purposes (i.e. Japanese Domestic routes where the 744 maxes out at 568).And yes I read all the posts, but I find it hard to believe an airplane that is nearly 250 feet long can only carry up to 440 passengers. The 777-300 can carry up to 550!
sorry, that was merely a tangent we ran off on.
Happens a lot here ;)
By: - 6th June 2005 at 12:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why does Airbus claim its A340 is more fuel efficient?
By: - 6th June 2005 at 14:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe because it is ;)
Both companies will often claim their product is more efficient than the competition's. You will even find two models competing head to head, with one saying it offers cheaper costs 'per passenger seat' and the other cheaper costs 'per trip'. And then you have to take into account cargo capacity, maintenance costs, commonality...
Which one is better? It's for the airlines to decide I guess, and usually model A will be the best choice for some airlines and model B will be best for others- it'll depend on the specific requirements of the airline in question.
By: - 6th June 2005 at 14:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why does Airbus claim its A340 is more fuel efficient?
Airbus like to claim a lot thats not absolutely true.
Yes their A340 is fuel efficient, but the 777-200ER and 777-300ER burn much less fuel than any respective A340. This is Fact, not spin, undeniable fact garnered from actual airline operations, not test flights. Thats probably why the 777 leads the A340 2:1 in sales ;)
By: - 6th June 2005 at 21:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...And yes I read all the posts, but I find it hard to believe an airplane that is nearly 250 feet long can only carry up to 440 passengers. The 777-300 can carry up to 550!
But Phantom, you obviously still havn't read all the above as I said on the 2nd of June '...If the need arose then Airbus could up the limit with further testing...'.
Therein lies your answer.
By: - 7th June 2005 at 11:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sandy and 4 engines good, thanks for the replies. In their literature, which I don't have with me (I'm in France right now and failed to bring anything technical -- other than Sabbagh's amazing 777 book), I believe Airbus makes the claim that direct operating costs of the A340 are lower than those of the 777. IIRC, those costs were seat-mile.
Eh; just wondering how and if it is possible for both claims to be true. I guess they can be.
By: - 7th June 2005 at 12:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sandy and 4 engines good, thanks for the replies. In their literature, which I don't have with me (I'm in France right now and failed to bring anything technical -- other than Sabbagh's amazing 777 book), I believe Airbus makes the claim that direct operating costs of the A340 are lower than those of the 777. IIRC, those costs were seat-mile.Eh; just wondering how and if it is possible for both claims to be true. I guess they can be.
You can twist seat mile costs to hell and back to suit whatever needs you like. What Airbus are claiming in that book is probably true, but only to a very limited point.
Take the A340-300 and the 777-200ER Both direct competitors.
Typical 3 class layout on the A343 is 335 seats.
Typical 3 class layout on the B777 is 301 seats.
So the A343 has more seats... so in effect you can claim that it has a lower seat mile cost as there are more seats to spread the cost out with.
However, the reality is... it just means you have a higher breakeven factor. In other words, you'll need to fill more seats in the A343 to make money as you would the the 777
On the other hand, the 777 due to it only having 2 engines uses less fuel per seat. IT can also fly further, carry more cargo and as it is a twin, needs half the engine maintenance of a quad.
So when you factor it all together, the 777 realy is cheaper to run. And its sales speak volumes.
By: - 7th June 2005 at 14:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
both companies use a variety of statistics to make their product seem to be the best -(the saying lies, damned lies and statistics comes to mind) but as a pax I would, where possible, chose A340/330 for long haul because of the 2-4-2 seating - it is no fun being either the middle of a row of 3 (or 5 on some carriers) or having to ask 2 people to move if sitting by a window.
By: - 7th June 2005 at 15:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
both companies use a variety of statistics to make their product seem to be the best -(the saying lies, damned lies and statistics comes to mind) but as a pax I would, where possible, chose A340/330 for long haul because of the 2-4-2 seating - it is no fun being either the middle of a row of 3 (or 5 on some carriers) or having to ask 2 people to move if sitting by a window.
Yep, same for me - if I travel coach, and if the price is the same, I will opt for the A330/340 for simple sitting reasons (and avoid as far as possible the 747 and 777). That makes even more sense if you travel with a companion (can have you two seats on the side and no one bothers you).
Posts: 7,989
By: PhantomII - 2nd June 2005 at 02:49
Can anyone tell me what the maximum capacity of pax the A340 series can carry? I can find the numbers for most other large airliners, but not the A340. For example, the 777-200 can max out at 440, while the 777-300's max is 550. The 747-400's max is 568. What are the numbers for the four A340 models?
I'm generally a Boeing fan (707 being my favorite classic airliner), but I do have a liking to the A340, so I was just wondering.