Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Time To Call The A340 A Failure?  
User currently offlineMrComet From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 542 posts, RR: 8
Posted (9 years 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 18959 times:

With airlines already dumping them for being inefficient, sales unlikely to reach the 500 level and their future sales growth stunted by Airbus's own A350 and B777, should the A340 series be relegated to the list of failed commercial aircraft?


The dude abides
137 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGodBless From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2752 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 18941 times:

Easy to answer: No!

Max


User currently offlineJush From Germany, joined Apr 2005, 1636 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 18934 times:

simple as that:
not at all...
thx

Regards
jush



There is one problem with airbus. Though their products are engineering marvels they lack passion, completely.
User currently offlineRAFVC10 From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1980 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 18925 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don´t think so. Airbus made this aircraft to try to compete with the 747 and 777 and Airbus got a great demand in this model.

I think that is one of then best aircrafts ever built and only see that most airlines has based more of it´s long-haul flights in the 340 family: Iberia (343,346), Air France (342, 343), LH (342, 343, 346),...



El dia que los gilipollas vuelen, no podremos ver la luz del sol!
User currently offlineMrComet From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 542 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 18894 times:

Come on.

It won't make the money invested. It wasn't a derivative meaning it cost a lot to design. It has four big redesigns yet 350 plus sales. It's not going to sell more than about another 100 copies.

I'm not saying its not a comfortable plane to fly or not a nice looking airplane. But from a sales and airline standpoint (some were not happy with it), it seems like .... well, lets be polite, certainly less successful than Airbus wanted it to be and probably a money loser.

[Edited 2005-09-15 11:27:55]


The dude abides
User currently offlineTaromA380 From Romania, joined Sep 2005, 334 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 18802 times:

A340 is just a quad-engine version of the A330.

Looking at the sales of the A330/340 family, I'd rather say the opposite: it was a huge success.


User currently offlineDAL767400ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 18801 times:

While the A340 family itself wasn't a failure (though it could have performed better), its family member A342 was definitely a failure, as airline could just opt for the A343 and get a bigger plane with the same capabilities.

User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 18785 times:

Quoting MrComet (Thread starter):
With airlines already dumping them for being inefficient

So how many airlines have done so or are planning to do so? One, two, three or more?

Quoting MrComet (Thread starter):
sales unlikely to reach the 500 level

Sure, but the mistake in your analysis is the fact that the A340 is part of the A330/340 family. A330 and A340 were not developed apart from each other.

Quoting MrComet (Reply 5):
It won't make the money invested. It wasn't a derivative meaning it cost a lot to design.

As I said, add the A330 to the financial analysis and then let's talk again.

Quoting MrComet (Reply 5):
It has four big redesigns yet 350 plus sales.

Turning the A340 classic into A340-500/600 is one "redesign" - and the others are...?



Regards
Udo


User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2284 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 18753 times:

Quoting MrComet (Reply 5):
well, lets be polite, certainly less successful than Airbus wanted it to be and probably a money loser.

So far, it's got 385 orders, and I'm quite sure that it will grow to 400+. While that does not make it into a huge commercial success, I'm quite sure that Airbus has earned money on this plane.

Quoting MrComet (Reply 5):
It wasn't a derivative meaning it cost a lot to design.

The A330/A340 was designed as a family. They have so much in common so much of the design cost was also common to both types. And so far, that family has 929 orders, and Airbus is picking up new orders for the family the whole time.

The A330 has 544 orders today. Wihtout the A340, I doubt if the A330 would have received so many orders, because some airlines order those planes as a package.

If the A340 had never been developed, then my guess is that the A330 would have gotten maybe only 400 orders, and the design cost of the stand-alone A330 would have been higher.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3213 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 18725 times:

For those that chose it, the A340 has been well recieved.

The only company i can really think of that hasn't been so happy is Air France.
There has been some small fleet changes (ei - SQ) but no big A340 operator seems to have any major problems.

Indeed Virgin Atlantic, Cathay, Lufthansa, SAS, Air Canada, Gulf Air,
SAA, China Eastern, Lan Chile, Iberia, Aerolineas, all seem to be doing very well with the A340 on long-range routes. You'd hardly call that a failure.
That and the fact that as the programs where developed together, some weight needs to be given to the A330 orders as well (when comparing against 777 etc). In this day of the A346 that isn't as straight forward as it was back when it was just A343 and A333 vs 777, but it shouldn't be totaly ignored either.

By Comparison, the DC-10 has 386 civil versons built.
200 MD-11s were built
about 229 767-200s were built
about 260 or so A310s

Given that the project came out of one program (a330/a340) the total deliverys for this project is around the 660 mark. Hardly a failure as a project by any means. Given that, if we look at certain Aircraft, such as the 764 or the A342, nobody could consider those individual models a success. But as part of a wider program, it worked.


User currently offlineMaersk737 From Denmark, joined Feb 2004, 702 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 18675 times:

The A340 alone is not a big success. Together with the A330, it is quite a big success  bigthumbsup 

Cheers

Peter



I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 18641 times:

I suppose that true 'success' in this field amounts to producing a classic like the DC3, the 707, the 737, or the 747, that goes on selling in numbers for a generation, and recoups its development cost many times over.

The A340 clearly won't ever be a 'success' in those terms; but on the other hand it probably wasn't a commercial failure to the extent of not having recouped its costs of development for Airbus (especially since, presumably, a proportion of the 'launch aid' won't have to be repaid).

Thing is though, it's not a prospect for future longhaul sales; having four engiines to pay for, feed, and maintain, it simply can't compete with ETOPS types like the 777 and 787, or even the A350. So it's a 'failure' in the sense that it failed to establish and maintain its planned position in the marketplace.

'2 Engines 2 Make Money' looks like proving to be a better slogan than '4 Engines 4 Longhaul'.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 18607 times:

Quoting MrComet (Thread starter):
With airlines already dumping them for being inefficient, sales unlikely to reach the 500 level and their future sales growth stunted by Airbus's own A350 and B777, should the A340 series be relegated to the list of failed commercial aircraft?

No. The whole A330/340 family has 929 orders to date. I think a failure is something like the MD-11. Besides, they are still very efficient. And who is dumping them for being inefficient??? Singi sold theirs to Boeing, because of a good deal, but I don't know anyone else who gave his away. The A342 was caught by the A332, ok, but what else went wrong??

Quoting RAFVC10 (Reply 4):
I don´t think so. Airbus made this aircraft to try to compete with the 747 and 777 and Airbus got a great demand in this model.

747 is way bigger and the 777 didn't even exist when the A340 came out.

Quoting MrComet (Reply 5):
It won't make the money invested.

How do you know???

Quoting MrComet (Reply 5):
It wasn't a derivative meaning it cost a lot to design.

It was based on the A300. Also the A332, A333, A345, and A346 are its derivatives, so the money invested brought back something.

Quoting MrComet (Reply 5):
It's not going to sell more than about another 100 copies.

I don't think they will sell more than ten A343s. A346 HGW might actually become a good seller.

The whole A340/A330 was and is a big success in my eyes. It replaced the DC-10 and the L-1011 and even kicked out the MD-11.

And to all the people who complain about the lack of speed:

1. Unless you're driving in Germany, you don't even know what speed is.

2. It could go faster, but it would use more fuel, so why do it?

3. How important are 30 minutes on an ten-hour-flight??

4. Flying is like being with a woman. It's supposed to be safe and comfy, not fast.


User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 18579 times:

Quoting MrComet (Thread starter):
With airlines already dumping them for being inefficient, sales unlikely to reach the 500 level and their future sales growth stunted by Airbus's own A350 and B777, should the A340 series be relegated to the list of failed commercial aircraft?

Oh not again, How many time do we have to explain that the A340 belongs with the A330/340 project. The investment was shared for both projects, with excess of 900 sold, and still going strong.

Quoting Udo (Reply 8):

Sure, but the mistake in your analysis is the fact that the A340 is part of the A330/340 family. A330 and A340 were not developed apart from each other.

Bingo Udo.

Quoting Udo (Reply 8):

As I said, add the A330 to the financial analysis and then let's talk again.

Bingo once again


Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineMrComet From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 542 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 18577 times:

Good points. I back off the contention that the A340 is unprofitable if it has manufacturing commonality with the A330 which has done well.

I think it might still be fair to say the A340 has been a disappointment vis-a-vis the A330.

[Edited 2005-09-15 12:13:02]


The dude abides
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 18541 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 12):
(especially since, presumably, a proportion of the 'launch aid' won't have to be repaid).

Ok NAV20, we get what your up to. Just give it a rest for once.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 13):
I don't think they will sell more than ten A343s. A346 HGW might actually become a good seller.

I too am confident that the HGW version of the A340-500/600 will allow the A340 family to grow even further.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineArniePie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 18527 times:

Quoting MrComet (Reply 15):



Quoting MrComet (Reply 15):
I think it might still be fair to say the A340 has been a disappointment vis-a-vis the A340.

I think the general consensus is that it is not a failure but it isn't the smashing success it was hoped to be either.

I suspect in the end they got their investments back and made some profit but nowhere near as much as they hoped to do.



[edit post]
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 17, posted (9 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 18501 times:

WINGS, I'd have thought that it was common ground, even between us, that launch aid only has to be repaid out of the proceeds of sales?


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 18491 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 16):
too am confident that the HGW version of the A340-500/600 will allow the A340 family to grow even further.

Is there actually going to be a A345 HGW??


User currently offlineMagyarorszag From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 18465 times:

As others said the A330/A340 family is a single program.

Total orders/deliveries for that family stand at: 929/669.

A340-200/300: 244/239 (orders / deliveries)
A340-500: 26/19
A340-600: 115/48
Total A340: 385/308

Sources: Airbus.

Note too bad for an airliner that is in commercial service since 1993.


User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5032 posts, RR: 43
Reply 20, posted (9 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 18410 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 18):
WINGS, I'd have thought that it was common ground, even between us, that launch aid only has to be repaid out of the proceeds of sales?

And what exactly is it that makes you think that the A330/A340 project, with over 900 sales and counting, is not going to recover costs?


User currently offlineAerosol From Germany, joined Oct 2000, 558 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 18316 times:

1. Opinion of the author is clearly indicated in the question, so why answer it?
2. No indication of willingness to discuss the topic based on economical facts ("Airlines dumping them for being inefficient"?!?).
3. According to you Mr Comet, what would have been the strategic alternative for Airbus? Producing bananas or diapers?

Safe your energy guys the whole topic is rubbish!


User currently offlineArniePie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (9 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 18209 times:

Quoting Magyarorszag (Reply 20):
As others said the A330/A340 family is a single program.

Total orders/deliveries for that family stand at: 929/669.

A340-200/300: 244/239 (orders / deliveries)
A340-500: 26/19
A340-600: 115/48
Total A340: 385/308

Sources: Airbus.

Note too bad for an airliner that is in commercial service since 1993.

That is actually a surprise for me (I am not very knowledged about the order volumes for airliners in general I must admit), I tought it would be a lot less.

I just had a search for B777 (all models) orders on the Boeing website and it says that from oct16-1990 on (UA 16 planes) up until present (unidentified customer 1 x777-200ER) ,the 777 program amassed "only" 703 firm orders.
I was always under the impression that the B heavily outsold the A in this segment of the market (or maybe I'm comparing apples and oranges here?  Confused ).



[edit post]
User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 18179 times:

Quoting ArniePie (Reply 23):
I was always under the impression that the B heavily outsold the A in this segment of the market (or maybe I'm comparing apples and oranges here?

Yes, there are a few apples and oranges.  Wink The A330-200 does not compete with any B777 version, it has been a B763 and B764 competitor.


Regards
Udo


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6914 posts, RR: 63
Reply 24, posted (9 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 18177 times:

As has been said many times in this thread and elsewhere, the question is whether the A340 should be seen as a stand-alone model or merely a variant of a family.

In favour of the 'family' approach is the total (so far) of 900+ sales for the A330/340.

Calling that argument into question is that Airbus have needed six models (A332/333/342/343/345/346) and five engines (CFM56/Trent700/Trent500/CF6/PW4000) to get there. That cannot have been cost effective.

For comparison, the 767 has sold very comparable numbers (964 according to today's Boeing website). But they did it largely on the basis of just three engines (versions of the JT9/PW4000/CF6) [OK - and the RB211 if you insist] and I suspect that resulted in better economies of scale than Airbus have enjoyed on the A330/340. Equally, Boeing has also needed six models (-200/200ER/300/300ER/3ERF/400ER) to reach 900+. In Boeing's favour is that a significant majority (54%) of the planes off the line have been just one model: 522 -300ERs. Nothing in the Airbus line can claim success like that. (Yet! The A332 is having a decent stab at it.) Of course, that also means that many of the other five 767 variants only enjoyed modest sales. (128 x -200; 121 x -200ER; 104 x -300; 51 x 300ERF; 38 x -400ER). No-one would suggest that the 767 as a whole was anything but a success but individual models must have been disappointing.

And I think that's where the A340 belongs: disappointing. Yes, it can be seen as but part of a successful programme but I don't think anyone can deny that Airbus would have liked better sales of the A342/A343. In the late '80s - rightly or wrongly - the A343 was perceived as being pitched against the MD-11 and 777-200ER. The McD jet sold just 200 and the A343 a touch more than that but Boeing have sold 422 777-200ERs and they must be seen as the "winner" in that race. Airbus no doubt hoped for at least some of those sales. Two quick examples: both Thai and Malaysia were early customers for the A330 but neither chose the A343, preferring the 772ER.

In that sense, the A340 (at least the A342/A343) may not be a "failure" but it has been a bit of a disappointment.

And as for the A346...? Still perhaps just a bit too early to call. (But I bet there are some worried faces in Toulouse!)


25 HEGAN : I can imagine why NAV20 thinks that... I hope that, because we must admit that the 773 is selling much better than the 346. Agur, HEGAN
26 Udo : Thai was an early customer of the MD-11 and had operated the type quite some time before the A330s started arriving. There wasn't really a gap for th
27 RedChili : I don't think anyone can deny that Boeing would have liked better sales of the 737... Thai bought the 772 for short hops within Asia. There was absol
28 Post contains images Scbriml : Concordeboy, is that you? Airbus has always considered the A330 & A340 as a family of aircraft. Since the family has nearly hit 1,000 sales, I don't
29 PM : Yes, I know what Thai bought, when and why. But they recently ordered 6 777-200ERs when, as an operator of A330s and with A345s/A346s on order, they
30 Post contains images CHRISBA777ER : I dont see it that way. I look at the airlines that operate it: OTTOMH Air France Lufthansa Virgin SAS TAP Iberia Swiss Air Europe Air Jamaica BWIA So
31 Udo : The B772ER carries more payload and will offer engine commonality with existing B772As. The A343 would have been a realistic option at the beginning
32 HEGAN : Sure??? Agur, HEGAN
33 Mandala499 : A342/A343 is in my opinion an utter disappointment... However... it's not fair for us to say that the A340family as a whole is a failure... Maybe the
34 RedChili : That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is the Thai widebody fleet. They will soon have A300, A333, A345, A346, B743, B744, B772, B772ER, B773, M11
35 WINGS : I understand your point on this, but like Scorpio explained the A330/A340 are part of one family with excess of 900 orders and counting. Am sure that
36 Starlionblue : Six models indeed, but the 747 is on the fifth variant and maybe moving to the sixth. The commonality between 330 and 340 is so great they could easi
37 Aerosol : I would love to hear your opinion about the 747-300, 747SP, 767-400, 757-300...
38 Zvezda : I think this sums it up quite well. The A340 has been a mediocre success.
39 RedChili : SU has never operated any A330 or A340. Well, you could actually say that the 747 has eight types: 741 741SR 747SP 742 743 744 744D 744ER
40 MidnightMike : Not at all, the A340 may have not been a huge success, but, it kept customers from potentially purchasing Boeing aircraft & brought Airbus in a small
41 OHLHD : Who is doing so. Do you refer to OS for selling their 342? Which are the other airlines you are refering too?
42 Rivet42 : It's quite astonishing (or maybe just depressing) that people are prepared to embarrass themselves with sweeping statements when they exhibit a clear
43 Atmx2000 : Comparing the number of models is misleading though. The A330/340 family has three major subfamilies with very distinct differences, while the 767 mo
44 MidnightMike : If there are any comparisons, wouldn't you have to compare the A330/A340 to the 757/767 family?
45 CHRISBA777ER : RedChilli, Aeroflot are getting the Austrian A342s last time I looked. They are to leave the fleet as the ex-Lauda 772ERs arrive, so any day now.
46 Post contains images CHRISBA777ER : Phil P - you sound just like Philb!! Agree with what you say though.
47 Eha : Wrong, new wing for A340-600. E.
48 Atmx2000 : They share much less in common than the A330/A340, with signficant differences in fuselage width and missions.
49 RoseFlyer : Well my take on it is that the A340 got very unlucky. Airbus beat Boeing's 777 by two to three years. This should have given Airbus the sales advantag
50 RedChili : Firstly, the ex-Lauda 772ERs will not arrive in the OS fleet. They have been part of the OS fleet for a long time, as Lauda is part of the AUA group.
51 Magyarorszag : You are right. A332/A333 and A342/A343 have the same wings. A345/A346 have larger ones. A342/A343 : 60,3m / 363,1m2 (wing span/wing area) A345/A346 :
52 CHRISBA777ER : They have been repainted in the OS livery - I know about the Lauda-Austrian link-up. OS is disposing of their A342s and I'm positive SU is acquiring
53 Astuteman : I think that's absolutely right, Zvezda. Whatever, I'm glad it was built - it's a fabulous, and beautiful aircraft (even if some newer competitors ca
54 Cornish : Of course there would have been no A380 without the experience gained from building the A340.......
55 RedChili : I think you are correct that Boeing took advantage of a couple of extra years to make the 777 slightly better than the A340. In another thread I was
56 CHRISBA777ER : To be fair you are probably the authority on this - i cant find any info. What made me think that SU was acquiring them then? Was there a thread on he
57 Post contains images Macc : one should not forget that Airbus has to offer the whole range of aircrafts. And in this way, the 330/340 family IS a success, as they complement the
58 Soylentgreen : Copied the 747, and lost the hump. How original. America makes, the world takes (a famous sign in Trenton, NJ).
59 Post contains links RedChili : There has been rumors going on on a.net claiming that SU was getting them. I never believed in those rumors. Moscow Times has a good article about th
60 ChrisNH : It becomes a very confusing discussion when you talk about 'platforms' versus 'derivatives.' I was going to suggest that the A340 (platform) was more
61 Post contains images Udo : What we don't take for sure is crappy postings like yours... Whether you think it's fair or not - fact is both models were developed as one family. R
62 OHLHD : SU was highly interested in getting those in exchange for their 772 and money, but the SU 772 went to Vietnam Airlines and the A342 are going to some
63 Soylentgreen : Achtung Udo. You'll continue to copy American designs, just like every other business/industry/culture does around the world. Is English spoken in you
64 RoseFlyer : It is hit or miss whether or not being late but having a better product is a good thing. Boeing was number two in the jet age with the 707, buy did t
65 Thorben : Interestingly enough, they are a 772 and 773 operator, but instead of going for the 772LR and 773ER they went for A345 and A346. And Cathay? Operates
66 Post contains images NAV20 : You've got to start taking a broader view of the world, Udo On the one hand, it is more than arguable that American spoken English (particularly in th
67 Post contains images Revelation : Folks, we are supposed to be aviation enthusiasts here, not aviation whiners. There's another web site for that! The A340, standing on its own, is a s
68 Post contains images Prok : You're definately one of those guys who thinks everyone in for example Holland wears wooden shoes, lives in windmills, picks flowers in the weekend a
69 Post contains images WINGS : Try not to make such an of yourself. It will not gain you any credibility around here. Am sure many of our American friends here will agree with me.
70 Post contains images Udo : Nobody says "cell phone" over here. What? When have I ever suggested anything totally stupid like that? You have no idea about my attitude towards av
71 Soylentgreen : They don't? Capital of Europe is NYC right? Seriously though, how can a plane be called a failure when its run is not yet up? Development costs are d
72 Post contains images Cornish : And Great Britain tends to invent.....
73 Post contains images GARPD : I think its more like: Britain invents, America re-hashes, world copies.
74 Post contains images NAV20 : Have to mention that Australia contributed the combine harvester - and we were putting winged keels on yachts long before the aviators thought of wing
75 Soylentgreen : Why insult Americans if your beef is with me? If you don't like the post, ignore it, or challenge it with an explanation and an example or two. Don't
76 Aerosol : Like jetphotos.net did? Remember where you write this dude!
77 Scorpio : What makes you think I was talking about 'all Americans'? I was talking about ignorant Americans with a superiority complex such as yourself, who giv
78 Eha : Time to call this thread a failure. E.
79 Post contains links B2707SST : It's fair to say that A340-200/300 sales have not been all Airbus hoped they would be. Part of this is probably due to the Superfan fiasco, part to th
80 Glom : Will the HGW versions of the A340 solve the problems of fuel burn or is it just a case that it will be able to carry more fuel and so travel further.
81 WINGS : Lets try to get back on topic. Airbus constructed one A340-8000. What are the main differences between the A340-200 and the 8000? Does it have anythin
82 RayChuang : I don't think the A340 was that big of a success. The A340-200 didn't sell that well, and the A340-300 didn't really hit its stride until the higher-M
83 Scorpio : Don't give up your day job for a career in comedy just yet, you'd be in for a disappointment... I suggest we continue this via PM, as I don't feel fo
84 NAV20 : To me that's the most important point. The A340 kicked off the whole concept of ultra-longhaul. But Airbus used four medium-sized engines, Boeing wen
85 BlueSky1976 : Airbus did not copy 747. It made a much more aerodynamically efficient design with superior wing. A330/340 family had the first supercritical wing pr
86 Richardw : Surely it has been a success in the eyes of cabin crew with its 2-4-2 seating in economy which must be easier than 3-4-3.
87 RedChili : Aeroflot leased their 777s, so there is no way they could have exchanged them for Austrian's A340s. I'm sorry, but this information is not true. Actu
88 Post contains images NAV20 : Wildly off-topic and not meaning to pick a fight, Bluesky - but many years back I was involved in a project producing Shakespeare plays in 'Elizabeth
89 Post contains links AMSSFO : read this thread and the one linked in it: http://www.airliners.net/discussions...eneral_aviation/read.main/2328483/ and this one: http://www.airline
90 Post contains images BHMNONREV : That is without a doubt is the most priceless one-liner I have seen at this site. Classic stuff... So true, especially in light of the fact that Ebon
91 AirPacific747 : time to call you a failure? lol
92 Gigneil : Huh? N
93 Post contains images Gearup : [ NAV20, Have you ever considered running for political office? Back to the topic: By any measure, the A340 is a success besides, it is still in produ
94 Post contains images Scandinavian : off-topic, but that´s one of the best things I have ever read on this site!
95 Wiggidy : Youre not an american to me, youre an idiot. You make me ashamed of my own country, which is a very hard thing to do. Quite frankly, I dont think you
96 Glom : Not their version anyway. Sweep wings? Mach 3 cruise requiring special materials. The 2707 might have made it further had they not been so OTT with t
97 OHLHD : They were talks about it. OS would have leased them too. " target=_blank>http://www.airliners.net/discussions...13/4/ I know those threads, but what
98 PM : What they did was lease just three aircraft (to which they have not added) long before the 777-300ER was available. They may yet stick with the A346
99 Post contains images Scorpio : Funny coming from someone like you, who not only started the mudslinging with his first post (reply 59), but was also the first to call others names
100 Post contains links OHLHD : This is from http://www.austrianaviation.net/ where it says that the A342 are sold to a French Investor and the first will go out of service after win
101 Post contains links TGV : Let's continue: Americans did not invent high speed trains (no need to prove it !). Americans did not invent the Personal Computer (yes the PC!): htt
102 Post contains images Revelation : Yes, we'd like to thank you for the cavity resonator (key to radar), the Rolls-Royce Merlin (produced as copies by Packard), the jet engine (gifted t
103 OURBOEING : How many airlines fly the A340 anyways? Its a beautiful aircraft and I think the A346 is probably going to see more success than its earlier versions
104 Ruslan : What are you talking about? The A340 is one hell of an aircraft..try being under the -300 when Lufthansa and Air France depart from ATL....
105 Tockeyhockey : i love how everyone is defending the a340 by saying it's really just an a330 with four engines. this is a tortured line of reasoning and a poor argume
106 IRelayer : The fact that the A330/A340 program allowed Airbus to develop the A380 says enough about the success of the program. By the way, I am a Boeing fan. -I
107 GARPD : In both cases, the airlines went for the aircraft that was available sooner. It is hardly a move that show they are going to ditch the 777. They need
108 Post contains images TaromA380 : I think this is nonetheless a great topic, not seeing any murder threat or military invasion warnings.
109 RedChili : " target=_blank>http://www.airliners.net/discussions...13/4/ There's some good information but also some disinformation in these threads, like people
110 Post contains images Maersk737 : What a happy day....Once Again my hairdryer equipped friend is almost brought to the ground.......It can hardly dry....Sorry Fly....But It still does
111 RedChili : Plus Thai, South African, Iberia. The only thing the shareholders care for is whether the A330/340 program made a profit as a whole. And since it doe
112 Tockeyhockey : sorry - typo. anyway, my point is that you cannot defend the a340 by saying it's on a winning team. it has been a disapointment in sales on its own m
113 Post contains images LH459 : My sentiments precisely! These A vs B threads made me think twice, three times, even 4 times about actually forking over the to join this site. Now t
114 GARPD : Hmm,.... my bad. I misread the original post. TG ordering the A346 is most likely as a result of political pressure. Chiraq warned the Thai goverment
115 Post contains links Areopagus : The A340-600 wing was not all new. Flug Revue describes it as "an enlarged and refined wing. It has a tapered insert an 1,6 m wing extensions prvidin
116 Co7772wuh : I wouldn't call the 340 a failure . It's just that the 777's are extraordinary a/c ! Rememeber how much Boeing spent on the entire T7 progam .
117 Scorpio : It was the other way around: Thailand threatened the EU that they would NOT buy the A340s if the schrimp deal wasn't resolved. Thai had signed the Mo
118 Post contains images Revelation : Yes, but the title of the thread is "Time to Call the A340 a Failure?", not "rather large disappointment". And in my book, there's a lot of differenc
119 Amy : The first 4 engined jet airliner was the DeHavilland Comet so it was Boeing who did the copying. What a mindless statement. I see no reason to call t
120 AMSSFO : I didn't meant to tell you anything; I just wanted to point RedChili and Chris to the appropriate threads on SU and OS. Your post nicely summarized t
121 Revelation : I agree it was a mindless statement, but the B707 prototype is based on the B47 bomber, which had podded engines slung under the wings, not the in th
122 Eha : Sorry, I reiterate, new wing, new wing design. of course it is a larger wing as it is said above. try this also :http://www.aerospace-technology.com/
123 Gkirk : Not a failure, but it's also not in the same league as it's main competitor, the 777.
124 Phxfly : You can't compare just one version of the 767. The 767 has a 964 total orders over it's lifespan. It even has a net of 14 orders for this year so far
125 TUNisia : Time to call this thread a failure... a failure to diminish the reputation, reliability, and design of a great aircraft. The A340 / 330 family.
126 Post contains images RIX : - so what, weren't we equally successful on the last World Cup ? OK, OK, you lost to the future champions, while we - just to the finalists... I give
127 Geo772 : This is one thing that some operators would find quite important. Once turnarounds and scheduled maintenance have been factored in an operator of 777
128 Post contains links B2707SST : As I posted above, Boeing has the answer for the A342/A343: Back in 1987, Airbus projected 490 total deliveries of A340 Classics by the end of 2005:
129 Starlionblue : Good point. But it's not really that new. It has a tapered insert and is very much based on the old one.
130 Boeing Nut : Money maker?...... probably not. Failure?.....Certainly not.
131 Korg747 : It kind of turns me off when I see people claim "we Americans invented this so we are better than you, or we Europeans invented this so we know more t
132 PyroGX41487 : Loose the patriotism and who made what... this is aviation. I honestly don't give a damn if the EU made all the Airbus planes or the U.S. made Boeing
133 Post contains images Mandala499 : Aerosol, I would love to hear your opinion about the 747-300, 747SP, 767-400, 757-300... Apples and Oranges... The A340's original models are disappoi
134 Propulsion : It is always very annoying when people group these two aircraft together when a sales comparative is being made. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME AIRCRAFT EVEN
135 Post contains images OHLHD : Ohh I see, I did not mean it bad either Somehow it would have been a triangle as the the leasing contract has not expired yet. Anyway you are right.
136 Post contains images Slarty : Anecdotal evidence (so don't razz me too much, but I do go out of my way to *not* fly 340s): I flew a fully-loaded LH MUC-SFO A340 a few years ago in
137 Kaitak744 : Well, here is a comparison chart. A330-300 = 777-200 A340-300 = 777-200ER A340-500 = 777-200LR A340-600 = 777-300ER The only A330/A340 aircraft that d
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...
Time To Revive The 7J7 Program? posted Thu May 5 2005 07:19:55 by Zippyjet
Virgin Atlantic-Why Back To Flying The A340 To SFO posted Mon Nov 10 2003 01:41:11 by AS739X
777-300! My First Time To Hear The Loud Reverse! posted Mon Aug 19 2002 16:47:43 by Hamad
When Is The Best Time To Start The Engines? posted Thu Jul 4 2002 06:06:09 by Hamad
Time To Close The Curtains posted Sun Jun 9 2002 00:37:04 by ILUV767
Why The A340/A330 Takes So Much Time To Climb? posted Sun Oct 26 2003 19:22:49 by B752fanatic
How To "Make Up Time" In The Air posted Sun Jun 25 2006 02:04:09 by TWAtwaTWA
Conviasa To Start Flight To MAD On The A340-300 posted Thu Jan 19 2006 03:16:49 by BA747
Is Now The Time To Book Spring Break? posted Wed Nov 2 2005 02:47:43 by FLAIRPORT
How To Tell The Difference Bewtween A340-300 & 500 posted Tue Nov 12 2002 21:56:29 by 727LOVER