Teahan From Belgium, joined Nov 1999, 5275 posts, RR: 62 Posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6377 times:
Airbus has at last modified the format of its Orders/Deliveries spreadsheet to include individual fleet subtypes, now making far easier to get a clear picture of the exact A340-600/600 order/delivered/operated position (we have had several discussions on the past trying to establish correct figures):
Aerolineas Argentinas 6/0/0 (I am still trying to establish AR's intentions in light of their recent purchase of 4 ex-Air Canada B747-400s)
Air Canada 3/0/0
Cathay Pacific 0/0/3 (All leased from ILFC)
China Eastern 5/3/3
ILFC 11/4/0 (Operated: 3 at Cathay Pacific, 1 at South African)
Qatar Airways/Amiri Flight 2/0/0
South African 6/6/7 (1 operated leased from ILFC)
Anxebla From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6275 times:
It's not bad for AIRBUS .... one question...Can you tell me if A340-300 is still
in production?If so...(yes according to Airbus' Web) Do you know if Airbus want to stop A343's production in favour of A345/346???
LVZXV From Gabon, joined Mar 2004, 2041 posts, RR: 38 Reply 3, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6205 times:
I'm as confused as you are with AR. Seems their 744s will replace their 742s (which still have years of service left on them), but the A340-600 is another matter. I believe that that order survived the crisis by way of procrastination, i.e. the first A346 was initially due to arrive in April this year, but delivery has been postponed to November 2006. I'm far from 100% certain on that issue, but I'm making do with the information I have, and plus no one seems to know much about them!
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 71 Reply 7, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5907 times:
N243NW, not to go too far off topic, but the A343E is fitted with upgraded engines, as well with - I think - some smaller upgrades to the cockpit (LCDs instead of CRTs - or was this introduced earlier?)... I also think there were 2-3 other changes, but the engines were the main point.
And concerning those EK A346s - oops, I must have missed that as well, cause it was a bit of a surprise for me, too...
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16345 posts, RR: 66 Reply 8, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5884 times:
Quoting the Airliners infopage on the A340-200/300:
"The heavier A340-300E is available in 271,000kg (597,450lb) and 275,000kg (606,275lb) max takeoff weights, their typical ranges with 295 passengers are 13,155km (7100nm) and 13,525km (7300nm) respectively. Power for these models is from 152.3kN (34,000lb) CFM56-5C4s (the most powerful CFM56s built). The first A340-300Es were delivered to Singapore Airlines in April 1996."
Horus From Egypt, joined Feb 2004, 5230 posts, RR: 61 Reply 10, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5761 times:
When I flew with the airline in December, their in-flight magazine had an article from the chairman, Capt. Sherif Galal, who said the airline will probably re-order 4 A340-600s to enhance their long-haul and high capacity markets.
Horus From Egypt, joined Feb 2004, 5230 posts, RR: 61 Reply 12, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5708 times:
Apparently both Airbus and Boeing made offers the airline could not refuse. Emirates cleverly played them against each other to get the best price. Though I think that Airbus was more of a winner since it sold the aircraft unlike the 777s which are all leased from ILFC
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5602 times:
Though I think that Airbus was more of a winner since it sold the aircraft unlike the 777s which are all leased from ILFC
...among the major reasons for this is that EK asked Boeing/GE for a GE90 producing 120-125,000lbs thrust. Considering that the 110-115,000lbs versions had yet to be certified, that wasn't exactly an option at the time of order.
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16345 posts, RR: 66 Reply 15, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5484 times:
Maybe the GE90 will never go to 125000 lb. You're talking quite a way over what is currently available. And maybe it was just a way of justifying their choice, by placing an "impossible" demand on Boeing/GE.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Andz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8352 posts, RR: 11 Reply 16, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5372 times:
Was the 340-300E not introduced to allow engine commonality for those operators using 340-600? Just a thought but it might make sense, if they are available with engines other than CFM. SAA have R-R on their 346s.
Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2686 posts, RR: 10 Reply 21, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 4936 times:
No other engine has proven worthy of matching the GE-90 in efficient operation over 100,000 pounds. PW and RR will have to make major modifications to their engines on the 777, or start out clean new designs. It is clear that the fact that only one engine type is available on the 773ER and the -772LR will hurt their sales with other airlines. The GE-90 must have a rival of these sales are to improve. It is clear that airlines like AA, loyal to Rolls Royce, for the 772LR are not satisfied with one engine choice.