Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why So Few A340-200 Orders?  
User currently offlineSan747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4949 posts, RR: 12
Posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8727 times:

I've been wondering for a while, why was the A340-200 never really a high-selling aircraft, unlike the -300,-500, and -600. It is some ways was better in performance than those other types, but I guess it was like the 736 and A318, too small to be efficient?

Thanks,
Alex


Scotty doesn't know...
76 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAerlingus330 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8604 times:

Its probley because its just an A330 with 2 more engines. The A340-200 is nearly the same length and can carry the same passengers.

aerlingus330



Aer Lingus Airbus A330-300
User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4108 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8600 times:

Simple. The plane sucked so badly that Airbus had to come out with the -300 right away.

User currently offlinePH-BFA From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8574 times:

'Simple. The plane sucked so badly that Airbus had to come out with the -300 right away.'

Ah ok, thanks for this 'useful' explanation.

PH-BFA


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4108 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8553 times:

PH-BFA:

Ok, it might not be the most "useful" explanation, but it's true. The A342 didn't meet many design expectations, is only an A330 with two more engines, and had horrible range (except for that one -8000 variant). Airbus saw this, and quickly offered the -300 instead. It's nearly the same size, but is a better performer. That, combined with the 777, killed the A342.


User currently offlineSDLSimme From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 465 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8535 times:

What is the difference between the 343 and the 333? Wouldn't the 343 just be a 333 with two more engines or does it have better range or fuel efficiency than the 333?


A319-A321, A332-A333, RJ85, B733-B738, B743-B744, B752, B762-B764, B772-B773, CRJ200-CRJ700, Dash 8 Q300-Q400, ERJ 145,
User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5037 posts, RR: 44
Reply 6, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8533 times:

Ok, it might not be the most "useful" explanation, but it's true.

No it's not. Bit of a hint: before you come on here and try to lecture people on such subject matter, try and do some research first. I'll set you on your way and tell you there are AT LEAST 2 SERIOUS mistakes in your explanation, that pretty much kill your argument.

Edit: make that three...

[Edited 2005-02-06 23:56:18]

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8448 times:

Ok, it might not be the most "useful" explanation, but it's true.

Almost, but not quite.

Yes, it sucked, no doubt there. But what mattered more to the airlines was that the A340-311 had better CASM, and the A340-313X had better range on top of that.

As a result, the A342 was relegated to obsolete status.




the A340-200 never really a high-selling aircraft, unlike the -300,-500, and -600.

...um, niche aircraft though it is; the -500 has sold less (in its 8th year post-launch) than the A342 did. Not exactly a "high-selling aircraft", don't ya think?  Big grin


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26599 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8427 times:

>What is the difference between the 343 and the 333? Wouldn't the 343 just be a 333 with two more engines or does it have better range or fuel efficiency than the 333?<

The 333 is more fuel efficient and has 2 fewer engines so less to maintain. The 343 has longer range

>The A342 didn't meet many design expectations, is only an A330 with two more engines, and had horrible range (except for that one -8000 variant).<

Well, the range is ok, just not nearly what they said. Also, the -8000 plane is a private jet so I don't see how that counts



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineViveLeYHZ From Canada, joined Dec 2004, 194 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8222 times:

What is the difference between the 343 and the 333? Wouldn't the 343 just be a 333 with two more engines or does it have better range or fuel efficiency than the 333?

You're kidding, right ???????? Of course it has to have a higher range, otherwise what's the point of the two extra engines. Here is the difference:

AC 333 (330-300): 274 pax, 5600 nm
AC 343 (340-300): 282 pax, 7750 nm
AC 345 (340-500): 267 pax, 9000 nm

Cheers,
ViveLeYHZ


User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8146 times:

From what I've heard and read, the A340-200 came up short because Pratt failed to come through with the so-called "superfan" engine. If the superfan had worked, the A340 would have be great.

User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2971 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8106 times:

AC carries more pax in the A343 than A333. Is that right? Usually its the other way around for most carriers.

There is a similar aircraft that can carry more pax, payload, and go further. A343E vs. A342.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26599 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8092 times:

>From what I've heard and read, the A340-200 came up short because Pratt failed to come through with the so-called "superfan" engine. If the superfan had worked, the A340 would have be great.<

Actually, that would be IAE (Pratt and RR).



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4791 posts, RR: 23
Reply 13, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8065 times:

AC 343 (340-300): 282 pax, 7750 nm

If those figures were true, AC would never have problems DEL-YYZ, a ~6300nm route. But they have made fuel stops. I think the figures you are referring to are max fuel range...not with a decent payload.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26599 posts, RR: 75
Reply 14, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8042 times:

Um, according to Airbus, the still air/no cargo range of the A343 is 7400nm, not 7750.


Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineLVZXV From Gabon, joined Mar 2004, 2041 posts, RR: 37
Reply 15, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7687 times:

I'm inclined to agree that "sucked" was a poor choice of words.

I'm not sure if they are the sole exception, but in AR's case, although their -300 deal fell-through, the -200 worked out better, and is employed on flights of near 14-hour duration such as EZE-AKL and EZE-FCO. In a 249-seat configuration, they are capable of flying 14,600km, i.e. more than an A343 or a B742. It was all Airbus could offer back in 1999 when no other product of theirs' was capable of covering such distances until the advent of the A345, which even now is not affordable to most (if not all) Latin American carriers. That said, if funds permitted, AR would have almost certainly chosen the -500 instead.

Like the B747-SP and numerous other types, I think demand was limited and it's not a big surprise so few were sold, although this is easier to say with the benefit of hindsight (I doubt Airbus envisaged such an outcome at the time). By no means does this imply the aircraft "sucked", however.

Regards,

ZXV




How do you say "12 months" in Estonian?
User currently offlineSDLSimme From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 465 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7579 times:

>You're kidding, right ???????? Of course it has to have a higher range, otherwise what's the point of the two extra engines.<

No, I'm not kidding, and I'm sorry if you feel disturbed by the fact that I'm a new member here and don't know as much as many other people here about all the technical details of all the types of aircraft out there. That being said, 4 engines doesn't always have to mean longer range does it? The 772LR only has two engines as far as I'm concerned and it has got quite some range  Big grin

Thanks though for informing me about the differences. After all, that's why i hang out here. To learn more about my hobby  Smile



A319-A321, A332-A333, RJ85, B733-B738, B743-B744, B752, B762-B764, B772-B773, CRJ200-CRJ700, Dash 8 Q300-Q400, ERJ 145,
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20728 posts, RR: 62
Reply 17, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7525 times:

These A vs. A wars are such a refreshing change from the usual A vs. B wars.

Carry on, I'm quite entertained.  Smile

(Welcome to a.net, SDLSimme, and you're quite right, 4 engines don't necessarily mean 4 longer range any longer.)



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7462 times:

AC 343 (340-300): 282 pax, 7750 nm

I have no idea from whence you derived this range figure, but it aint accurate.




AC 345 (340-500): 267 pax, 9000 nm

AC's A345s don't have anywhere near this range, neither do SQ/EK's.

The MTOW fortifications which [allegedly] will grant that level or range wasn't available when these aircraft were delivered.



It was all Airbus could offer back in 1999 when no other product of theirs' was capable of covering such distances until the advent of the A345

That said, if funds permitted, AR would have almost certainly chosen the -500 instead.


Dude, check your facts.... both of these statements couldn't be further from the truth.  Nuts

First of all, the A345 was available for purchase since 1997.
Secondly, Aerolineas looked at the A345 that year (1999), and instead chose to order the A346.


User currently offlineLVZXV From Gabon, joined Mar 2004, 2041 posts, RR: 37
Reply 19, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7417 times:

Concordeboy:

Let me put it more clearly:

In 1999, the A342 was the only ultra-long range model Airbus had readily available--remember these aircraft were acquired third-hand on lease.

And yes, AR did order the A346 in 1999 (6 of them), and but for the ensuing drama of 2001-2, AR would be happily flying the first 3 of them by now. However, in the remote chance that the outstanding order ("indefinitely postponed" at present) is not cancelled, it seems AR would prefer the -500 model over the -600, as the order can still be converted. For now though, AR has to make do with former Canadian B744s instead, although there is talk of leasing 2 or 3 more A342/3s in the near future...

That is all!

Regards,

ZXV




How do you say "12 months" in Estonian?
User currently offlineBurberry753 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 204 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7256 times:

The A342 range cant be too bad, dont South African use them on their Cape Town-Heathrow services?


User currently offlineViveLeYHZ From Canada, joined Dec 2004, 194 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6945 times:

ConcordeBoy, and CPDC10-30,

The figures come straight from AC's website. I didn't want to use A.net's (or even Airbus) figures, because these two sources would give you a range of values for the aircraft's range, which depends on (among other things) the actual seating capacity of the aircraft.

Here are the figures for A345 from three sources, and you guys pick the one you like:

A.net: 317 pax, 8500 nm (source).
Airbus.com: 313 pax, 9000 nm (about 9800 nm with zero pax). (source).
aircanada.ca: 267 pax, 8976 nm.

The AC fleet stats are found here:
Air Canada 340-500
Air Canada 340-300
Air Canada 330-300

Cheers,
ViveLeYHZ


User currently offlineOhlbu From Finland, joined Jan 2005, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6749 times:

I happen to have the book "Airbus A340 and A330" by Guy Norris and Mark Wagner, dating from 2001, which gives the following specifications for max range:

A332 6475nm
A333 4750nm
A342 8000nm
A343 7300nm
A345 8500nm
A346 7500nm

As they are "max range" my guess is that they are with max fuel, not max payload, unfortunately that is not mentioned in the book. And most probably the figures for A342/343 are with aux center tanks. But these max ranges never tell the operational truth, as few airlines buy planes to fly them until the fuel ends. Instead they buy an aircraft which can fly the routes they are planning to fly with max pax and cargo load. Well, with the exception of at least SQ currently, as their primary motive to order the A345 was to fly some routes nonstop with max fuel in far-from-cramped configuration.

BTW, Finnair almost ordered the A340 in the late ´80s but made a last-minute switch to the MD11 after Airbus replaced the planned IAE SuperFan engine with CFM56.


User currently offlineAnxebla From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6679 times:

LVZXV... Really do you think AR can need the A345 range?? On what routes are you thinking?

P.D.- Don't trust too much in Gonzalo Pascual... he's the world's "más raro" airline CEO


User currently offlineAdria From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6547 times:

"the -500 has sold less (in its 8th year post-launch) than the A342 did. Not exactly a "high-selling aircraft", don't ya think? " but the number is still higher that that of the competing aircraft Smile

25 ConcordeBoy : dating from 2001 Keep in mind that the A340"NGs" hadn't even completed their testing/certification at that time... the figures were speculative only.
26 PyroGX41487 : Aye. The only reason the SQ A340-500s can make that 9,000 NM + journey to EWR from SIN is due to the fact that they carry 181 pax, where the standard
27 Bennett123 : So what are the differences between the A340-200 and A340-300. Is it possible to convert an A340-200 to an A340-300.
28 PyroGX41487 : So what are the differences between the A340-200 and A340-300. Is it possible to convert an A340-200 to an A340-300. No, see, the A340-200 uses the A3
29 ConcordeBoy : that 9,000 NM + journey to EWR from SIN Careful with that. Though the still air might approach the distance you described, EWR-SIN isn't even 8300nm i
30 Trex8 : The A342 is about 0.5m longer than the A332, anyone know why??
31 LVZXV : ConcordeBoy: There are mixed reports about AR's A342s. It is true that on the database, several pictures are labelled "A340-213X", but whether or not
32 N1120A : >The A342 range cant be too bad, dont South African use them on their Cape Town-Heathrow services?< You could fly that route with a 767, it is only 52
33 Post contains images 727lover : OK, so I'm curious... How many of each have been delivered and are on FIRM order? 332 333 342 343 345 346 And just for comparison: 772 all versions 77
34 San747 : Has the A345 garnered less orders than the A342? Off the top of my head, airlines that have or will have A345s are: SQ TG QR EK AC Fill me in about op
35 ConcordeBoy : Has the A345 garnered less orders than the A342? Yes. Also, SA never ordered A342.
36 Trex8 : AF was an original customer
37 Post contains images RJ111 : The A342 has so few orders because his bigger brother, the A343X, weighs a mere ton more but has loads more room for freight and pax. The 333 is more
38 ViveLeYHZ : Is AC still the only carrier in North America with A345s ? all two of them that they have ? Since we're talking about the "longest range aircraft in t
39 N1120A : >The 333 is more fuel efficient and has 2 fewer engines so less to maintain. The 343 has longer range They say the A343 is more efficient 4000nm+.Is A
40 CPDC10-30 : ViveLeYHZ, AC is quoting their range in statute miles, not nautical miles.
41 ViveLeYHZ : CPDC10-30, I didn't know that, and I don't know the difference between the two. I will do a quick google search to find the difference. What about A.n
42 Eg777er : The way I understand it, almost as soon as the A340-200 entered service, Airbus announced the A340-313X which can carry many more people the same dist
43 LVZXV : N1120A: Um, EZE-AKL is less than 5600nm, that is not a 14 hour flight and something their 742s could have done. It is more a matter of purchase cost a
44 Zvezda : The B777-200LR will be able to fly LHR-SYD nonstop with plenty of cargo. It will be able to return SYD-LHR but depending on the weather will be payloa
45 Post contains images Udo : The B777-200LR will be able to fly LHR-SYD nonstop with plenty of cargo. Even the LHR-SYD sector would be limited. It will be able to return SYD-LHR b
46 Ktachiya : San747 Doesn't Sri Lankan and Austrian also come into that list?
47 ConcordeBoy : I didn't know that, and I don't know the difference between the two. 1 nautical mile = 1.1507794 statute ("real") miles
48 San747 : San747 Doesn't Sri Lankan and Austrian also come into that list? Can't believe I forgot Austrian! Duh... Not sure about Sri Lankan though. ConcordeBoy
49 ConcordeBoy : Where did SA acquire their A342s from? LH
50 Zvezda : Udo wrote: "Why should BA or QF purchase a premium prized aircraft, just to be able to fly a limited amount of premium seats and without cargo on a ro
51 Post contains links and images FlySSC : San747, Add to your list of A342 operators : AF, SABENA, AOM, AIRLIB, AIR TAHITI NUI, AIR BOURBON, the Government of Saudi Arabia (HZ-124), Qatar Airw
52 Dennys : YES , it is pretty sad that this beauty was not " best seller " , but nevertheless about 30 were built , and the A340-200 WAS the A340 launching campa
53 Iowa744fan : Another operator of the 342 was Cathay Pacific back around 1995/1996. However, they never purchased any outright, instead leasing 4 (I believe) from L
54 Korg747 : Dennys, Neither Cairo-Sydney nor Cairo-lAX will ever happen with the A340-200 profitably. Egyptair However flew Cairo-Sydney once with a stop at SIN i
55 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : I still think the A340-200 could have offered , or could offer many facilities to Middle East carriers , or even European carriers Sure it can. Proble
56 FlySSC : Dennys, The A342 was surely a great airliner... in its time ! it was launched already 13 years ago and at that time, its range was the greatest but it
57 N1120A : >The A342 was surely a great airliner... in its time ! it was launched already 13 years ago and at that time, its range was the greatest but it was ve
58 DeltaWings : Airbus announced the A340-313X What does that X mean? ~DeltaWings
59 N1120A : >What does that X mean?
60 FlySSC : N1120A, I don't think any B767 has the range of the A342... The B744 and MD11 are much bigger than the A342, I meant it had the greatest range in its
61 DeltaWings : >What does that X mean?
62 N1120A : >I don't think any B767 has the range of the A342...I meant it had the greatest range in its category< You said greatest range in the world, and that
63 FlySSC : Well N1120A, it seems that you want to play the role of a "Concordeboy" bis ... and play with the words... the 762ER come closer to the A342 Closer...
64 LVZXV : Could a 762ER/763ER fly nonstop full load CDG-EZE or SIN-CDG ? the answer is NO. Could an A342 do it ? the answer is YES. True. MAD-EZE pretty much "m
65 Anxebla : LVZXV... I don't know if the AR future is guaranteed under Viajes Marsans management. Marsans is very opaque and odd, and their transparency is nearly
66 Post contains images LVZXV : Anxebla: Vivimos en la esperanza! Seriously, you're totally right, and I am worried that someone from Spain shares my concerns about Marsans. Well, th
67 FlySSC : LVZXV, Only 1 A340-200X was built : it is msn 204, V8-AC3 for the Brunei Gvmt. and it has a longer range than the -300X.
68 N1120A : >And it was true, in its catgory, in 1992.Could a 762ER/763ER fly nonstop full load CDG-EZE or SIN-CDG ? the answer is NO.< The 762ER has a still air
69 Anxebla : >""The 762ER has a still air of 6600nm, so yes it can""
70 Dennys : to FlySSC . Thank you to take the deffense of the A342 ! I remember LH ordering 15 in 1991-1992 , but you are quite right , the A343E made this A342 o
71 ConcordeBoy : Only 1 A340-200X was built Correction: only 1 was factory built instead of being retrofitted.
72 Udo : SIN-CDG would be possibly loaded with a 763, while EZE would be a bit of a stretch No way. Lauda Air already gets problems with BKK-VIE under certain
73 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : Is there a reliable source for that claim? Not sure if it was an A342 or A343 that was replaced... but LH most certainly did op 763ERs to Phoenix, Atl
74 Udo : Not sure if it was an A342 or A343 that was replaced... but LH most certainly did op 763ERs to Phoenix, Atlanta, Miami, and Montreal in the 2003-2004
75 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : I sincerely doubt you'll ever find any [tangible] direct address to that specific issue.... ...and though assumption may be the mother of all f^ckups,
76 Post contains images FlySSC : Dennys, MEA could fly nonstop its A332 from BEY to GIG, JFK, YUL or ORD without problem... only a BEY-LAX would require an A345 or... an A342 !
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...
Why So Few Orders For 787-3? posted Mon Jun 20 2005 07:14:54 by Paddy
Why Were So Few A340-200s Built posted Thu Mar 4 2004 19:10:52 by AF022
Why So Few Airlines On ZRH-UK? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 18:29:53 by 717fan
Why So Few Codeshare Flts @ YYZ posted Fri Nov 3 2006 05:54:18 by RicardoFG
ATA- Why So Few Cities Served From MDW? posted Thu Aug 10 2006 23:51:51 by Eastern1985
Hawaiian Airlines - Why So Few Intl Routes? posted Sat Aug 5 2006 05:03:31 by EmSeeEye
Gibraltar - Why So Few Flights posted Sat Jul 29 2006 03:17:28 by StarGoldLHR
PBI - Nice Airport, Why So Few Flights? posted Tue Jul 11 2006 14:52:06 by ContinentalGuy
Why So Few Business Seats On AF 744? posted Wed Jun 28 2006 21:11:31 by Avi8tir
Why So Few Russian Airlines In Zurich? posted Mon Jun 26 2006 16:50:31 by 717fan