Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Lan Chile A340 Fleet  
User currently offlineGhost77 From Mexico, joined Mar 2000, 5212 posts, RR: 51
Posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4578 times:

Can someone please confirm if LA is getting 2 more A340 later this year?

Last week a Lan Chile A340 visited MEX as a 'test flight' and other issues related to A340 and LA's operations. I spoke with some people from LA and they told me that they are not getting the additional A340s this year (reason of the 3 additional pax B767s for htis year). More over there's a strong internal rumor for placing orders for B772F's and a few B772LRs for replacement of A340s once approved for ETOPS operations for routes to SYD and AKL! Any additional information on this?


Ricardo APM




Ricardo Morales - flyAPM - ¡No es que maneje rapido, solo estoy volando lento!
36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlyfirst From Chile, joined Nov 2004, 74 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4461 times:

There is something going on with the A340, LA was going to get their 5th aircraft by June 2005, but on a recent news release, they just said about getting 3 767-300 for 2005.
Since they use 767-300 for long haul, I think they might include 777 and change the 340s.



User currently offlineLan_Fanatic From Chile, joined Sep 2001, 1071 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4436 times:

I have never received official information about this, but I've heard from pilots since long ago about changing the 340s for 777s due to the A340 performance.


User currently offlineAero From Germany, joined Oct 2004, 181 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4344 times:

According to the Airbus webpage and to people related to the aviation industry, Airbus will deliver 2 x A340 this year for LAN.

I´ve also heard that LAN was looking at other aircraft types for its long ranges destinations...but as addition to the actual fleet...

hmm we need official information! What´s wrong with the A340?..ok they are slowler than a 747-4 but a flight SCL-MAD-FRA with a 777 would cost more...

any ideas?



LAN...the star of the Latin American skies
User currently offlineLan_Fanatic From Chile, joined Sep 2001, 1071 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4258 times:

I know only pilot rumours, nothing official, and I certainly have no technical knowledge, so I beg your pardon if you don't understand me. Well, what I've heard is that the A340 brakes get extremely hot after landing, due to the little power the thrust reversers have, so the brakes need to be cooled for almost 3 hours before the plane is ready to fly again, and we know that keeping a plane on land is almost a sin for LAN. The other thing I've heard is that LAN has needed to change 8 A340 engines.

Perhaps all I said is known by everybody, and is completely normal. I'm just posting what I've heard from pilots, when they criticise the A340. So don't shoot the messenger.


User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9708 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4249 times:

Why is the A340-500 not an option for LAN? Is SCL-AKL/SYD too far for the A340-500 to fly non-stop? Otherwise I don't see the reason for replacing their A340-300 with another type, unless Boeing will come with a very sweet deal, which Airbus won't let pass by that easy... The 777 would look very nice in LAN's livery but so would the A340-500  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

A388


User currently offlineLan_Fanatic From Chile, joined Sep 2001, 1071 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4230 times:

Why is the A340-500 not an option for LAN? Is SCL-AKL/SYD too far for the A340-500 to fly non-stop?


It isn't that long. Everybody, even us chileans, perceive that Australia and New Zealand are very far away, but it isn't. AKL is closer to SCL than MAD


User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2735 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4229 times:

"More over there's a strong internal rumor for placing orders for B772F's and a few B772LRs for replacement of A340s once approved for ETOPS operations for routes to SYD and AKL!"

I was wondering when this information was going to get out. Approxiamately two years ago, I heard from seperate sources that LAN was considering an SQ-type deal, whereby they would sell off their A343's in favor of 772ER's. This was only reinforced when LAN subsequently cancelled one A343 (went from 7 to the current 6), and delayed the delivery of the remaining two. However, obviously nothing ever came of this.

So now there are rumors for 772LR's, huh? Doesn't surprise me. I would still be curious to see if this actually occurs, but it also wouldn't shock me. A 772F order, however, would be a surprise, since they have two more brand-new 763F's coming down the line as we speak.

Regards,

Hamlet69



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlineTGV From France, joined Dec 2004, 874 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4198 times:

Well, what I've heard is that the A340 brakes get extremely hot after landing, due to the little power the thrust reversers have, so the brakes need to be cooled for almost 3 hours before the plane is ready to fly again

I am in no way a specialist of planes, only a passenger. But as a passenger I can say I have taken more than often A343 which had far less than 3 hours on the ground, especially when it was with a flight stopping somewhere (for example CDG-BKK-SGN).

I just looked at some turnarounds on routes I know being operated by AF 343, and they are as follows:
CCS : 2 h 15 (15.50/18.05)
BOS : 2 h 15 (17.55/20.10)
BOG : 2 h 35 (16.05/18.40)
SGN : 2 h 20 (07.20/09.40)

So the 3 hour time might be a little exaggerated ?



Avoid 777 with 3-4-3 config in Y ! They are real sardine cans. (AF/KL for example)
User currently offlineAnxebla From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4127 times:

>""Well, what I've heard is that the A340 brakes get extremely hot after landing, due to the little power the thrust reversers have, so the brakes need to be cooled for almost 3 hours before the plane is ready to fly again""<

THAT'S false, and very stupid, indeed, Hernán! And remember LAN is waiting for two more A340-300's... I tell you with friendship and respect: Don't say "boludeces"... ni rumores sin fundamento  Smile

>""So the 3 hour time might be a little exaggerated""< Yes, it's

>""Otherwise I don't see the reason for replacing their A340-300 with another type, unless Boeing will come with a very sweet deal, which Airbus won't let pass by that easy... ""< Totally agree!!


User currently offlineMIASkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1343 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4093 times:

Joder..me parece mi que a este tio no le gusto la idea de LAN y el 777 para nada vale!

I think the 777 would look great in LAN colors...as would the A346 in LAN colors.



Nothing better than making love at 35K Feet!
User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2202 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4052 times:

It's a well known fact that LAN's technical committe, pilot group and management all favored the 777 over the 340 when that initial competition took place a few years back. It took a personal trip by Foregard to Santiago and a last minute and significant price reduction to swing the deal in the 340's favor. In know the Airbus crowd can't stand that but it's a well documented story.

Perhaps the lower cost was not as worth it as LAN must've concluded at the time.


User currently offlineAnxebla From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4023 times:

For LAN the most suitable long-haul aircraft is the A340-300. LAN doesn't need the 777's or the A346's... and thanks to A343's LAN can flying AKL non-stop.

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4015 times:

Keep in mind that LA originally bailed on the 777 in large part due to utter disappointment in thePW4098 project.

Since then I, like Hamlet have heard quite a few rumblings about an SQ-F.U. sorta deal by LA... but nothing more of it.

I sincerely doubt thrust reversers have much/anything to do with it, considering that they cannot be calculated into landing specs/protocol... more along the lines of the A340's general-inability to directly climb out over the Andes Cordillera whereas high-powered 777s can.


User currently onlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8940 posts, RR: 40
Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4009 times:

LAN doesn't need the 777's or the A346's... and thanks to A343's LAN can flying AKL non-stop.

Yup. That's why I think they can/probably will [at least should] substitute their A340s with 7e7 and/or A350s except a for a couple or so A340s to fly to AKL.

Cheers,

PPVRA



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineOB1504 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 3299 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4004 times:

If LAN did decide to go with the 777 and replace their A340s, what would happen to the A319s and A320s? They'd be the only Airbus aircraft in the fleet.

User currently offlineAnxebla From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3971 times:

>""That's why I think they can/probably will [at least should] substitute their A340s with 7e7 and/or A350s except a for a couple or so A340s to fly to AKL""< When??? By 2012 or something like that? Big grin

NZ can't fly SCL and/or EZE due to they already have all 744's busy flying other routes-. A twin only can to do that leg (AKL-SCL/EZE) IF and only IF the ETOPS-330' regulation is approved. At the moment, any twin is unable to fly it.


User currently offlineLan_Fanatic From Chile, joined Sep 2001, 1071 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3917 times:

Well I'm sorry for posting rumours without any technical knowledge....
but as I said before...don't shoot the messenger!


User currently offlineAnxebla From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3889 times:

Hernán... do you believe that silly rumour... yourself?? I wonder why those rumors so stupid are always anti-Airbus, especially anti-A343

The A340-300 is a wonderful aircraft for LAN, which make a lot of profit (and besides, cheaper than any 777). Am I wrong, then?
Again: The most suitable plane for them is the Airbus 340-300. No doubt!


User currently offlineArcano From Chile, joined Mar 2004, 2406 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3876 times:

LanFan About the three hours, false indeed, remember for instance the stop in LIM in the EZE-LAX route; it takes less that that time. About the brakes getting hot, there is actually a true base: failed takeoffs, they just burn... it has happened a couple of times here in SCL.

For LAN the most suitable long-haul aircraft is the A340-300. LAN doesn't need the 777's or the A346's...
Anxebla: this time we'll disagree, I think a 777 would suit better. It is known that the 343 has been unable to perform as expected in the SCL-MIA and SCL-MEX route, but you have a very valid and undeniable fact about the ETOPS and the route to Oceania... which would change after the 777LR that could even suit for a potencial destinations to NRT, SEL and SIN... LAN has always been very loyal to Boeing aircraft, so are their pilots, and economic issues, as posted, were key in the Airbus deal.

And God no! please keep us away of the 345 and the 346...But it's also true that LAN is very happy with the performance of the 320/319s.

... BUT I've heard this from a very good insider: not all the people in LA are happy with the 320s... and again nothing to do with performance (as in the case of the 340), but for financial issues: the leasing fee. Apparently, at the current price of the old 732s, the economic choise of the 320 sounds not that smart nowadays, and many people inside critizice that fact. About the 340? this guy told me nothing, but rumours inside LAN are many.

... more along the lines of the A340's general-inability to directly climb out over the Andes Cordillera whereas high-powered 777s can.
CBoy: not exactly. No commercial aircraft overfly Santiago and climbs directly The Andes. I've cross those mountains in both aircraft: 777 and 343 (and 727, 737, 767, etc) and I can tell you there's absolutely no difference in the path followed: all of them are demanded to climb towards the south, turn left and cross...

*****************
Now as for the original topic: the deliver of the 2 343s remaining: as all the people know, the 340 original purpose was to replace the 763 in those golden growing years before 9-11. After that, although LAN never lost a single cent, the growing stimations felt down, and the deliveries were suspended, as well as the option negotiated for 14 more 340s...

The fifth one was supposed to be delivered in 2004, although it was delayed. The official version says that the aircraft will be delivered in Jun-Jul this year (it's actually needed with the frequency increase to Australia), but as posted, nothing for sure. The 6th was scheduled for next year.

Now the 777 ????

That's another story: LAN in my opinion is in the perfect condition for negotiating with Boeing. The strongest airline in the region and now a weakened Boeing (nothing like 1999). LAN will play that "pretty lady of the ballroom" and will hear proposals of both manufacturers. A 777 is a natural upgrade for the 767 and for me it would be a natural choise in 1999, but again, I think economical scenario is totally different now, so, although I think it's unlikely, there's a chance LAN will finally turn back and return to the Boeing way we all love  Big grin

Regards )( Arcano



in order: 721,146,732,763,722,343,733,320,772,319,752,321,88,83,744,332,100,738, 333, 318, 77W, 78, 773 and 380
User currently offlineLan_Fanatic From Chile, joined Sep 2001, 1071 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3863 times:

Anxebla, don't think I'm anti Airbus. I've only flown once in an Airbus, an Alitalia A300 so I can't judge them. And again, I apologise for posting rumours.

... more along the lines of the A340's general-inability to directly climb out over the Andes Cordillera whereas high-powered 777s can.
CBoy: not exactly. No commercial aircraft overfly Santiago and climbs directly The Andes. I've cross those mountains in both aircraft: 777 and 343 (and 727, 737, 767, etc) and I can tell you there's absolutely no difference in the path followed: all of them are demanded to climb towards the south, turn left and cross...


Arcano, that's not completely correct. IB and LA's A340 enroute SCL-MAD don't head south and then turn left for crossing the Andes after take off. They head south, and then turn right and head north until I don't know where, and then they turn northeast for the Andes crossing. Although this is difficult to compare with a possible 777 fully loaded, as there are currently no 777s flying non-stop from SCL to Europe.
Also, we don't know if this different routing is due to the A340's lack of power and slow climb rate, or because they are heading non-stop to Europe therefore not having to detour to EZE or GRU.


User currently offlineArcano From Chile, joined Mar 2004, 2406 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3853 times:

Yes, indeed, I was thinking in the EZE route, but it's true that flights to Brazil or Madrid does not turn left (actually, all flights heading north turn right).

But the point was another, no aircraft overfly Santiago and cross directly the Andes.

Thanks for the note.

Anxebla: the 340 is a profitmaker based in LAN passenger/cargo demand, not in the aircraft itself Maybe, a 777 could be more versatile than a 343, although I have now idea about the operation cost, you could be right that in long routes as MAD and AKL the Airbus could be cheaper... Anybody has a clue?

Regards )(



in order: 721,146,732,763,722,343,733,320,772,319,752,321,88,83,744,332,100,738, 333, 318, 77W, 78, 773 and 380
User currently onlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8940 posts, RR: 40
Reply 22, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3796 times:

.NZ can't fly SCL and/or EZE due to they already have all 744's busy flying other routes-. A twin only can to do that leg (AKL-SCL/EZE) IF and only IF the ETOPS-330' regulation is approved. At the moment, any twin is unable to fly it.

No no no, I was referring to LA, not NZ. I thought of 7e7s/A350s to Europe/USA and A343s to AKL and on.

although I have now idea about the operation cost, you could be right that in long routes as MAD and AKL the Airbus could be cheaper... Anybody has a clue?

Not a clue about the operating costs, but the 777s are ETOPS restricted to AKL so, at least for now, LA has to fly A340s to Oceania. OR, they could get some MD-11s Big grin Can you imagine them in LA colors? Beautiful!!

Cheers,

PPVRA



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineRj111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3778 times:

The A343 AFAIK has a slightly lower operating costs on most missions (i dont know how the hot climate and sudden climb would effect it), but the 777 is larger, can handle a higher payload and may resultingly be more profitable.

I'd be suprised if they did get the 777 in the end (it seems a lot of hassle)....but not shocked.


User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26354 posts, RR: 76
Reply 24, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3768 times:

t>he 340 is a profitmaker based in LAN passenger/cargo demand, not in the aircraft itself Maybe, a 777 could be more versatile than a 343, although I have now idea about the operation cost, you could be right that in long routes as MAD and AKL the Airbus could be cheaper... Anybody has a clue?<

The 777 has lower operating costs than the A340, and hauls more cargo. This is true on all routes. It also performs much better, which is very important at not just SCL, but MEX



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
25 ConcordeBoy : The 777 has lower operating costs than the A340, and hauls more cargo. This is true on all routes. Well, on most routes.... but take a potential route
26 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : ....why the hell did I just post that
27 Post contains links Arcano : Can you imagine them in LA colors? Beautiful!! It would look more less like this: http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/search/photo_searc
28 Post contains links Fyano773 : It took a personal trip by Foregard to Santiago and a last minute and significant price reduction to swing the deal in the 340's favor. No matter what
29 N1120a : >but take a potential route like EWR-DEL, at this point, the pathetic quad would have a lower overall cost than the twin, despite the latter's typical
30 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : because it would be terrible marketing to have a carrier that tried a 340 and drop it for the 777... ...again!
31 Hamlet69 : "For LAN the most suitable long-haul aircraft is the A340-300." Maybe yes, maybe no. As you correctly point out, LA certainly needed them at the time
32 Post contains links LatinAviation : Take this for what it is worth, but according to their Form 20-F, availabe at: http://www7.lan.com/files/compania/lanchile/informes_2003_final.pdf Und
33 Post contains images TGV : If LAN did decide to go with the 777 and replace their A340s, what would happen to the A319s and A320s? They'd be the only Airbus aircraft in the fle
34 Aerosol : Sorry, but from all I read here that seems to be a Virgin case. Everybody knew they were going for the 777 and then.... I do not think LAN will replac
35 RICARDOAB : Hasn't LAN just opened a route between SCL and PEK due to a new trade agreement between Chile and China. Surely this route would be ideal for the 777L
36 Arcano : Hi Ricardo No, LAN hasn't started direct operations to Asia, they just announced codesharing with CX and KE for Asia. They said also that it's unlikel
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Lan Chile A340 Repair At ZRH posted Tue Oct 25 2005 17:52:34 by Swissairtaz
Lan Chile A340 posted Sat Oct 1 2005 04:56:16 by Ted747
AKL Towbar Incident With Lan Chile A340 posted Thu Sep 15 2005 12:26:33 by Swissairtaz
Lan Chile A340 To MEX Only Today! posted Sat Jan 8 2005 20:25:55 by Ghost77
Lan Chile A340 Begins Service To MIA posted Thu Aug 16 2001 17:43:17 by AirafriqueDKR
LAN Chile A340. Are They In Service Yet? posted Tue Dec 12 2000 00:05:48 by Superfly
LAN Chile A340 posted Sun Nov 5 2000 18:16:59 by B737-700
Lan Chile A340-300! posted Mon Oct 16 2000 03:08:03 by LanChileA340
A340-600s And A380Fs For Lan Chile? posted Sat Jul 23 2005 13:59:37 by FCKC
Lan Chile Receives 2 New A340! posted Wed Oct 31 2001 19:20:50 by RJ_Delta