From: Tobias Henry Lutterodt <luterodt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> Date: 04 Mar 93 01:53:31 PST References: 1 2
View raw article or MIME structure
>While 180-minute ETOPS will allow the A330 (and 777) to do nearly the >same job as the A340, the A340 may still prove more economical. The >number of engines isn't the only consideration -- witness the BAe-146 >which seems awfully silly with four engines on such a little plane, >but has done fairly well. But the A340's engines are generally operating at their extremes (thus the lack of growth capability) while those of the 146 are relatively cooler. This and other considerations must also be taken into account. Most airline bosses will want the long life and reliability of two large engines for all but the most extreme missions. >I think it's pretty far-fetched to consider safety >as a liability for the A340 versus the A330 and its competitors. I agree, it's not a liability...everything's relative. Passengers always like to see lots of engines out there, but I'd bet that in the long run the A330 beats its sister when it comes to dispatch reliability and IFSD's. >And comfort has never been a word I would associate with >any member of the DC-9 clan. >Am I missing something on this one? Well, the MD-80 series has about the same passenger comfort level (seat width/ aisle width) as the A320 on a per passenger basis. Both are much better than the B737. And, the MD-80/90's engines are at the rear of the cabin. The A320 especially, is noisy inside the cabin. Toby (The Commercial Aviation Nut) BTW, the MD-95 is not an MD-90 as such but rather a shortened, simpler MD-87.