> Alas, I'm pretty sure that I'm somehow guilty of wrong think here. I just wonder why. Not wrong, just too literal maybe. These are design ranges, with a sta

> Alas, I'm pretty sure that I'm somehow guilty of wrong think here. I just wonder why. Not wrong, just too literal maybe. These are design ranges, with a standard payload and standard fuel loading. If you think about it, it makes sense: airplanes don't have a fixed range. Depending on how much payload and fuel you take along (at full payload, you probably can't fill your tanks to max capacity, or you'll exceed your max takeoff weight), you can get more or less far. The extreme case, an empty plane with full tanks, would have tremendous range but would of course make no economic sense. So they design airplanes for what they assume to be the sweet spot: certain routes with certain characteristics (say, long distance over water, traditionally needing more than two engines). So the A330 was designed for routes which were accessible to pre-ETOPS twin-engine planes, which apparently tended to be shorter. Conversely the A340 was designed with a focus on over-water routes, which are apparently longer.