Aircraft swaps happen once in a while, whereby the aircraft operating a flight is different than the plane you were expecting. While this can happen for all kinds of operational reasons, here’s an aircraft swap that’s on a different level, as reported by aeroTELEGRAPH…
In this post:
Edelweiss operates Oman flight with Airbus A320
Edelweiss is SWISS’ leisure subsidiary, and the airline operates both short and long haul flights. The airline operates a flight to Oman — it’s a triangle route from Zurich (ZRH) to Muscat (MCT) to Salalah (SLL) to Zurich. This flight is ordinarily operated by an Airbus A340-300.
However, in the past couple of weeks, this route has experienced an aircraft swap twice — instead of being operated by the planned wide body A340, the route has instead been operated by an Airbus A320.
For context, Edelweiss’ A320s are configured with 174 seats, with all rows being in a 3-3 configuration. The planes don’t have seat back entertainment, Wi-Fi, or power ports, and the interiors are in line with what you’d expect on a short haul flight within Europe.
Meanwhile Edelweiss’ A340s are configured with 300 seats. This includes 29 business class seats that are flat beds, and 271 economy seats in a 3-3-3 configuration. The plane also has seat back entertainment at all seats.
So talk about an absolutely massive difference in terms of passenger experience. I would have to imagine the flights also didn’t have their typical catering, given the lack of oven capacity on the A320.
When it comes to travel time, the Zurich to Muscat flight takes around 6hr30min, the Muscat to Salalah flight takes around 1hr20min, and the Salalah to Zurich flight has a refueling stop in Athens, and takes around 9hr30min. So for the return flight, those originating in Muscat spent over 12 hours on the plane, while those originating in Salalah spent over 10 hours on the plane. Talk about a rough trip on an A320!
Aside from people who were bumped, EC261 regulations don’t specifically cover what passengers would be entitled to due to the plane swap. However, presumably they would be entitled to some compensation, given the difference between what the airline promised, and what it actually delivered.
Why has Edelweiss made such a drastic aircraft swap twice?
It’s rare to see such an extreme plane swap at an airline, given the massive difference in terms of capacity and passenger experience. So what’s the cause of this happening not once, but twice?
Well, on November 19, 2025, Edelweiss’ Airbus A350-900 with the registration code HB-IHF had an incident in Bogota (BOG), whereby the plane was struck by a baggage cart, causing damage to the engine. Given how small Edelweiss’ long haul fleet is, this plane grounding has had major operational implications for the airline.
As a result, Edelweiss has had to swap around the planes operating in some other markets, and these Oman flights being downgraded has been part of that strategy. I suspect that comes down to Oman being one of the long haul destinations that could most easily be served by the A320, given that it’s one of the carrier’s shorter long haul flights, and also doesn’t involve crossing a major body of water (unlike Edelweiss’ transatlantic flying).
Bottom line
Passengers traveling on Edelweiss from Switzerland to Oman were in for an unpleasant surprise, when their Airbus A340 got swapped with an Airbus A320. Given that many passengers on this route spend 10-12 hours on the aircraft, that’s a massive downgrade, without seat back entertainment, Wi-Fi, or even power ports.
This plane swap was because an Edelweiss A350 was taken out of service due to a ground incident in Bogota, which means the carrier’s long haul fleet is stretched thin.
What do you make of this Edelweiss plane swap?
Recently had a fantastic 11-hour business-class flight on an Edelweiss A340, so it would absolutely suck to be downgraded to an A320. Service was even better than in Swiss business class the following day.
Your headline states the opposite of your article
“Aside from people who were bumped, EC261 regulations don’t specifically cover what passengers would be entitled to due to the plane swap. However, presumably they would be entitled to some compensation, given the difference between what the airline promised, and what it actually delivered.”
Yes, even EU261 and similar regulations need to be reformed and improved, because these folks deserve better. As for additional compensation, if that rule doesn’t help, they may have to seek...
“Aside from people who were bumped, EC261 regulations don’t specifically cover what passengers would be entitled to due to the plane swap. However, presumably they would be entitled to some compensation, given the difference between what the airline promised, and what it actually delivered.”
Yes, even EU261 and similar regulations need to be reformed and improved, because these folks deserve better. As for additional compensation, if that rule doesn’t help, they may have to seek remedies by citing the Montreal Convention, which is far more tedious, and airlines seek to deny those claims, meaning you often have to sue them to get them to comply.
If you paid $2,500 for lie-flat, but got a 3-3 middle blocked, which the airline would’ve sold for $1,000, then at least you should get $1,500 back. However, because the airline did not deliver what it sold, there really should be additional compensation, which is what EU261 seeks to do with delays and cancellations, overbooking, etc. This ‘downgrade in class of service’ is a loophole that needs to be addressed. Ironically, we have next to...
If you paid $2,500 for lie-flat, but got a 3-3 middle blocked, which the airline would’ve sold for $1,000, then at least you should get $1,500 back. However, because the airline did not deliver what it sold, there really should be additional compensation, which is what EU261 seeks to do with delays and cancellations, overbooking, etc. This ‘downgrade in class of service’ is a loophole that needs to be addressed. Ironically, we have next to nothing protecting us passengers in the USA on any of this. We deserve better. It’d likely take Congress to pass new legislation. The airline lobby (A4A) fights against it. Wish more folks knew and cared about this.
Edelweiss is easily one of the most atrocious leisure carriers in Europe. This isn’t even a Ryanair “you get what you pay for” thing; it’s just cold, unfriendly service, even by DACH standards! Just a tired attitude, zero warmth to match the cabin design, and the “cute holiday airline” look from the livery is completely misleading. Flew once, never again. Honestly, you’re lucky if they don’t slap you on the way off…
If you have the choice between Discover airlines and Edelweiss, you will definitely fly Edelweiss.
This September I had booked Air Canada from YVR to ZRH. Outbound flight was operated by Edelweiss on a A350. This flight was way above the return flight on AC equipment both in service quality and crew friendliness.
Their A359 HB-IHF is still on ground in Bogota. It seems not easy to fix the damage.
Locals are probably stealing the engine to install it in one of their drug running speedboats.
Jose, it’s 2025, not 1985; Colombia has come a long way since its darker days.
ultimately, the question comes down to what widebody routes they can operate with a narrowbody - and there probably aren't too many choices.
Edelweiss does operate some A320NEOs which might be able to make the flight north/westbound (or not), avoiding the fuel stop.
and the fuel stop probably forces a crew change; they have been able to get the plane turned at ATH in about an hour - shorter than scheduled - on the days...
ultimately, the question comes down to what widebody routes they can operate with a narrowbody - and there probably aren't too many choices.
Edelweiss does operate some A320NEOs which might be able to make the flight north/westbound (or not), avoiding the fuel stop.
and the fuel stop probably forces a crew change; they have been able to get the plane turned at ATH in about an hour - shorter than scheduled - on the days the flight has stopped there.
and the ground handler that damaged the 343 might be on the hook for the extra costs and passenger compensation for the downgrade.
Ultimately, the question comes down to what your IQ is!
you're the one that said they had 3-4-3 configured 343s.
Just own your mistake instead of trying to diss someone else that can see thru your....
Google photo search: „ edelweiss a340 cabin“
It is 2-4-2.
Caught with your pants down again Eskimo …. Eskimo has little or no idea about aircraft seating, how can one ever take him/her/it or whatever one should use as a pronoun seriously?
Not only is this an indictment to customer service excellence, it is also illegal under Swiss Aviation Charter SG196 - Sec. 3.4, paragraph 8 "Operators shall make good on advertised services, including explicitly food & drink, legroom, seat width, entertainment, internet access, power connectivity.
Appendix H of SG196 stipulates very clearly that a per passenger fine can be levied against the carrier of up to 400% of base fare, 100% of which the Swiss...
Not only is this an indictment to customer service excellence, it is also illegal under Swiss Aviation Charter SG196 - Sec. 3.4, paragraph 8 "Operators shall make good on advertised services, including explicitly food & drink, legroom, seat width, entertainment, internet access, power connectivity.
Appendix H of SG196 stipulates very clearly that a per passenger fine can be levied against the carrier of up to 400% of base fare, 100% of which the Swiss government will remit to the passenger.
Hey Ben don't the A340s have a 2-4-2 configuration in Y? It's their A350s that has the 3-3-3.
No, their A340s are in a super tight 3-4-3. They are the only operator to employ 10 abreast seating.
which makes their 320 seat wider
@Tim Nope, I'm afraid not. Their A340s feature 18'' in Y, whereas those on the A320s are only 17.7'' wide. Besides, J goes from a flat bed to intra-Europe blocked middle seat Y.
you are correct that their 343s are 18 inch because they are 8 abreast as you note below. 3-3-3 would produce seats much narrower than 18 inches.
I'm not sure the 330/340 is even certified for 10 abreast in coach as Eskimo states; the "standard" 330/340 is 8 abreast which is what their planes have.
@Tim, that's exactly what the point I'm trying to make. Edelweiss does not have 3-3-3 in Y on the A340s and hence the seats are not narrower than those on the A320s. As you pointed out, no A330/340 is certified for 10 abreast and Eskimo's comment is merely a joke.
@Eskimo, oh please, drop the sarcasm. I'm referring to the statement in Ben's post where it plainly says, "Meanwhile Edelweiss’ A340s are configured with 300 seats. This includes 29 business class seats that are flat beds, and 271 economy seats in a 3-3-3 configuration."
Cabin photos, seat map websites like AeroLopa, and even Edelweiss' official seat map point to a 2-4-2 configuration.
https://www.flyedelweiss.com/gb/en/fly/flight-information/fleet/a340.html
WRONG!!!! Look at euroAtlabtic, Uzbekistan Airlines and Ukrainian International Airlines - 10 across 340! DING DING DING!!
Slow down on the cool aid Eskimo. If the airlines you mention don't have a 343 seatmap on aerolopa your examples probably lack a bit of relevance ?
You certainly have lost your name Eskimo, as well as your “DING DING DING”.
One can find absolutely NO evidence that:
A. Any A340 is flying with “10 across”.
B. Or that EuroAtlantic is flying A340.
Now! If you are going to claim that your login had been hijacked again, then Ben, needs to get his act together to stop this practice. Your claims of foul play is reflecting badly upon Ben’s website security, yes?
Thanks Putin!
I’m no fan of him, but what does he have to do with this? Or, was this a new take on the old ‘Thanks Obama’ meme. If so, no, I would not diminish Putin’s war crimes and the amount of suffering he has caused in this world.
Ukraine deserves peace and justice, to receive all its territory back (as the 1994 Budapest Memorandum states), to be rebuilt using seized Russian assets, and to have security guarantees, ideally NATO/EU membership.
It’s a 10:30pm departure from ZRH, so meals may not be much of an issue. They still show J availability on flights scheduled to be operated by the A320. I assume they’re going to do standard European blocked middle seat in J. I would definitely push for a rebook to the LX codeshare operated by WY with a 789 if I was in J. Being part of the LH group, I probably wouldn’t get it.
You might want to cover the follow-up to the Japan/China aviation situation.
There's been massive cancellations and decrease in capacity across all Chinese carriers. You can check it out on aeroroutes.
Thanks Putin!!!!
That's what Xi said
Eskimo, thank you! That’s what I was gonna say! Bah!
yoloswag420, could you please tell that to the Chinese tour buses overwhelming the temples in Kyoto. Was there recently and they’re still packing the place, regardless of the nonsense Xi is saying.
I had a similar swap by Avianca twice between BOG and SCL. Instead of flat bed on an A330 whim I booked, we got an inferior business class seat on an A320.
I meant “what” I booked.
Avianca is notorious for this. Do yourself a favor, and never trust their metal again. Some still like to use their program to book cheap partner flights, but, if anything goes wrong, good luck with that…
Edelweiss made it clear that there will be no compensation.
(They belong to Lufthansa Group…so not too surprising.)
I assume the flight was far from full given the difference in the number of seats.
If so then they have to deny boarding to a number of pax and reroute them and compensation is due
Indeed.
And why should they pay compensation, if there is no denied boarding (in that case a compensation may be paid depending on the new routing).
Hi Ben, just FYI the title currently reads "Edelweiss Swaps A320 For A340 On Long Haul Flight". Think that's meant to be the other way around
@ MissingScurrah -- Sorry, maybe I haven't had enough coffee, but is that wrong? I think swapping an A320 for an A340 is correct, while if I had said "swaps A320 with A340," it wouldn't have been correct. Or am I thinking of this wrong?
You swap the first item for the second. A340 for A320
@ Gva -- Thanks. Replaced "for" with "with" and changed order, so hopefully makes sense now.
Or you can say “A320 from A340”, but not “A320 for A340”. That would mean it was swapped from A320 to A340
I was also confused by the article’s title, as after checking my English thesaurus: to swap means to ‘exchange of one for another’…
So your title should read ‘swap an A340 for an A320’, or use ‘exchange’ for clarity instead. The reverse grammar is to ‘exchange [another] in place of [one]’ (as in your title currently, but not ‘swap’).
Aside, dropping these routes may have been mainly due to operational disturbance reduction (ie less filled routes).
Learn to proofread then ffs.
I was confused by the headline too, so I had to read the article to find out how this could possibly be a downgrade. I guess that worked!
But seriously, I agree with @MissingScurrah and @GVA. You swap what you already have in hand For something else. The correct wording would be Edelweiss Swaps A340 for A320.
Unfortunately, I wouldn't think the pax in economy have a claim for compensation, at least legally. Entertainment/food differences aren't covered. And it's not like being on a narrow vs. wide body in economy is really the difference that some people make it out to be. Although, have they had to bump people due to the smaller plane, or was the flight operating that half-full?
Now the business class pax, that's different, and probably due compensation?
Eric, yes, these business class passengers are the ones getting screwed the most here. After an incident like this, I wouldn’t trust Edelweiss with anything but essential travel; otherwise, seek alternatives. Like, you could route through DOH and enjoy Q-suite to most of Europe if you are paying business class fares.
Still, those in economy might have a claim on the return, if the delayed schedule, due to the fueling stop, was significant enough and...
Eric, yes, these business class passengers are the ones getting screwed the most here. After an incident like this, I wouldn’t trust Edelweiss with anything but essential travel; otherwise, seek alternatives. Like, you could route through DOH and enjoy Q-suite to most of Europe if you are paying business class fares.
Still, those in economy might have a claim on the return, if the delayed schedule, due to the fueling stop, was significant enough and doesn’t qualify under ‘extraordinary circumstances,’ but the airline would have to prove that, not the passengers.