oh, and to add on to my previous post, here's an example of the 777 interior being applied to a new 767 and the great improvement it offers: Before (old 767 interior): http://www.airliners.net/open.file/263184/L/ New (777 interior applied to 767): http://www.airliners.net/open.file/264880/L/

Just because a FEW select airlines remove overhead bins for FC passengers does not give the A340's interior a significant advantage. Just because the A340 has the capability to remove bins does not mean that it is better than the 777's interior, which provides more headroom and is sleek and modern throughout the entire plane.

For Boeing, the 777-style interior is by far the best. Boeing is also now offering it on new production 767s and 744ERs. Boeing has also recently redesigned the interior cabin for new 737NGs and 757s. All Airbus planes have fairly spacious cabins. As to which cabin is better (777 vs. A330/A340) for longhaul flights, I personally feel the 777 ...

Then I will refer you to Boeing's Frontier article: http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/i_ca1.html

Hmm, I wonder too. If the A340 is, as you claim, ''much better suited for trans-Pacific routes'' and ''better comfort'', then WHY would airlines much rather order the 777? Airlines order whatever suits them best. For example, Eva Air ordered the A330 over the 767 because the A330 is superior to the 767. Instead of ordering A340 along with A330 ...

True, but seats on the 777 are just as wide or wider. And a 2-3-2 arrangement in business is hardly considered so horrible that passengers ''suffer'' a middle seat. Yes, the 2-5-2 arrangement on the 777 is not good; the alternate 3-3-3 arrangement is better. The 777 has superior overhead storage and headroom though. I suppose you're referring ...

Unfortunately, there are very few routes that involve ETOPS restricted zones or the poles. The only areas where the A340-500 may have an advantage over the 777-200LR are routes near the West coast of South America and trans-Antarctic routes. It should also be noted that on most other routes, the 777 outperforms the A340- for instance, CI was ...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the 777 has always had and still has the highest reliability rate, which is currently at 99 percent. As for your argument that a quad engine design is ''better'' than a twin like the 777, how about this: the A330 (twin-engined) has always held a higher reliability rate than the A340. And of course, the 777 has an ...

Airlines are silly because they order the 777 over the ''much more reliable A340?'' Let the facts speak for themselves: - the 777 is MORE reliable than the A340 (99% as compared to 98.5%) - the 777 has always been more reliable than the A340, ever since 1996, just a year after it entered service - Sales figures, as of Sept. 2002: 777: 607 ...

All of this is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE! All of the incidents you cited about the 777 being unsafe involve problems with the ENGINES, in particular, the Rolls Royce Trent 892 engine, which powers the Singapore and Emirates 777 fleets. The Trent has had problems lately, however, these were all minor incidents of contained engine failure and in no way ...