Airbus quotes 8500nm on the 340-500 in typical layout and load, with 7800nm on the 380 with 'max-pax' (which I'd assume means their 550 3-class layout with average luggage load.) So yes, while the A345/747-400s and the 380 put much of South-Asia/US point-to-points just within the range, the 380 has significantly more margin to increase the range by reducing the pax load. (Reducing the # of passengers on a 345 would need to be done at a premium to make the route profitable, I guess that is why Singapore is doing what they are doing. And I'm guessing they will look to offer the same SIN-LAX product on the 380 when it is available.) Matthew The 340 On Dec 6, 2003, at 8:25 PM, David MR wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alireza Alivandivafa" <DEmocrat2n@xxxxxxx> > To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 19:03 > Subject: Re: [AIRLINE] Airbus 380: They're Doing it Again > > >> In a message dated 12/4/2003 9:02:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, >> mmontano@xxxxxxxxx writes: >> >> << The other thing is that the A380 has an awesome range. While many >> parts >> of East-Asia are just on the fringe of of non-stop range from the US >> with existing 747-400s and now A340-500/600s, the A380 puts it all >> within non-stop range. There will be no more technical stops in >> Anchorage/Vancouver/Hawaii and JFK/HKG will become a year-around >> normal >> flight. >> >> >> Um, I believe the A345 has longer range than the A380 will have, and > SIN-LAX >> nonstops with the 380 will be a stretch > > A340-500: 8,650 nm > A380: 7,800 nm > A380HGW (High Gross Weight): 8,150 nm > > So, even though Alireza is wrong on his choice of drink (i.e. thinks > AmWest > does wrong serving Pepsi), he is right here. > > Question: The A340-500 range is with 313 pax; does anybody know what > it is > with SQ's configuration (181 pax)?