San747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 5005 posts, RR: 11 Posted (11 years 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 9452 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?
FriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4138 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9278 times:
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.
Scorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5226 posts, RR: 42
Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9258 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.
CPDC10-30 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4945 posts, RR: 21
Reply 13, posted (11 years 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8790 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.
LVZXV From Gabon, joined Mar 2004, 2041 posts, RR: 33
Reply 15, posted (11 years 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 8412 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.
SDLSimme From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 475 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (11 years 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 8304 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
Thanks though for informing me about the differences. After all, that's why i hang out here. To learn more about my hobby
LVZXV From Gabon, joined Mar 2004, 2041 posts, RR: 33
Reply 19, posted (11 years 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 8142 times:
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...
ViveLeYHZ From Canada, joined Dec 2004, 194 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (11 years 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 7670 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:
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.