ACB777 From Canada, joined Sep 2003, 350 posts, RR: 2 Posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6129 times:
When do you think we'll see the A343 go out of production? For what reasons? Do you think it should go out of production The A342 has already sort of gone out of production. I think it should go out of production because in my opinion, I don't think its a good aircraft with those tiny, underpowered (this only my opinion!) engines and the slow climb. I think that the A340 - 500 and the A340 - 600 are great aircrafts because of the increased power, however. These two planes could lead airbus into the future. Do you think it would be wise for airlines that don't necessarily need the range of the A345 to get the A345 anyways instead of buying the A343?
Jaws707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 708 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5968 times:
Its important to note that their are airlines who do not need the capacity of the A345 or A346, so the A343 still makes sense for them. For example if SAS wanted to expand their long haul fleet with a couple more A343's its nice for them to know that they can.
Joni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5655 times:
I don't think Airbus is going to discontinue a major product because some members of this forum think the engines "look small". Besides, I seem to recall they recently launched a revamped version of the 343, which suggests they intend to keep selling them for the forseeable future.
Na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10365 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5561 times:
Here they join again, the notorious one-eyed A340-bashers.
The A340-300 is the most comfortable airplane I´ve ever been on, more comfortable than a 777, and, yes, more comfortable than my beloved 744 because the Airbus is quieter (nothing can beat a 1st class seat in a 744´s nose though).
That the A340 is a slow climber I also like because I hate any kind of sudden moves in the air unless announced. I agree the engines of the A343 are not good-lookers.
"N79969"s point is right if to speculate about the A343s future life. There is no need to expect a closure anytime during the next years.
Even the A340-200 is still being offered although the chance of one being built is minimal. It´s as dead or alive as the 777-200"A" series.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7929 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5271 times:
I think Airbus is seriously looking at phasing out the A340-200/300 series because Airbus is considering making improvements to the A330-200/300 that will substantially increase the range of the A330's, which will make the A340 superfluous. Besides, I think Airbus does want to push A340-500/600 sales instead.
Motech722 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 211 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5198 times:
As others have said in this thread so far, as long as airlines are willing to purchase the A343, then Airbus will continue to build it. The A345/346 certainly are the newest aircraft in this family, but if they don't fit the requirements for the airline, then there is no need to spend the money to buy them if the A343 meets your needs.
There can always be speculation as to when the A343 or any other plane will go out of production, but its difficult to say. Who on here would have thought that this year Boeing would announce that the 757 line will come to an end? The threads about the end of the 757 showed that no one expected that, and the same can be said about the A343, no one really knows when the end of production will come.
ACB777, your opinion as to why the plane should go out of production is interesting, but since airlines think its a good aircraft even with those tiny, "underpowered" engines, I think we'll see the A343 in production for a while longer. The A343 fills a niche in air transport.
Lyzzard From Singapore, joined Nov 2003, 404 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5104 times:
I used to fly A343s with Singapore Airlines... those tiny engines are by far the most economical powerplants on any major commercial airliner. They were always the butt of cruel airplane jokes... birdstrike from the rear, the only airplane with 5 APUs etc... Granted the power to weight ratio isn't very impressive, but they do get the job done, albeit at a leisurely pace. Fuel burn in cruise averages 6.5 tons/hr, compared to 10.5 tons/hr on a B744. We always end up with extra gas during our flights, even while stuck at lower levels or avoiding extensive weather enroute. I have nothing but praise for the A340 and quite look forward to flying the A345 when SIA eventually gets them next month. Incidentally, from the performance firgures I've seen, the A345 is definitely the sexier and sportier version of this wonderful airplane. Time to altitude is shorterened by almost 5 mins at MTOW, cruise is a tad faster (0.83 vs 0.82)... and the dimensions of the Trents suit the aircraft better than the old CFM56.
MD80Nut From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 889 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4945 times:
Airlines don't care about the looks or slow climb performance of an aircraft. If the aircraft is reliable and profitable to operate, then the demand will be there. The A340-300 has proven to be both, so I figure as soon as the airline business starts to pick up you'll see more A340-300 orders as well as for other aircraft. The bottom line is the A340-300 has proven itself an excellent long range aircraft, it should remain popular with airlines needing a long haul aircraft that's smaller that the 747-400 and A340-500/600.
The A340-300 may have a slow climb rate, but so far that hasn't proven to be a problem for any airline. It's popular with passengers as well, so there's no reason to discontinue it!