Das Flugzeug From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 160 posts, RR: 1 Posted (13 years 6 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1991 times:
I have always been under the impression that twins are more efficient/cost effective than quads, that being the prime reason for the B777. Why then does LH use A340s across the Atlantic instead of A330s?
Ahem From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (13 years 6 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1833 times:
The 340's starting arriving on LH property in the early 1990's, a few years before the novelty of ultra long-haul twins was a reality. By the time the era of 777's and 330's came about, LH had a sizeable fleet of them and simply expanded from there. Since there are a good number of 10-14 hour flights from FRA, LH are not really losing anything on this deal. Besides, the 333 has poor range compared to the 342/343 and the 332 is not big enough.
The real question is why Airbus didn't scrap the 340 altogether and simply make a slightly lengthened 333 a true 777 competitor with the 332 on offer to really spice up the offerings. My bet is that the technology of 75-95,000 lb thrust engines wasn't available in the late 1980's (when the 330/340 were being designed) which resulted in a quad/twin family rather than the 330 having its own family.
I'd be willing to venture that if Airbus had it to do over again, the 340 would have been a twin. Then again, the 340 is a more suitable platform for the enormous stretches involved with the 500/600 series.
Hisham From Lebanon, joined Aug 1999, 701 posts, RR: 12 Reply 2, posted (13 years 6 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1812 times:
I don't think the A330 is more efficient on longer routes. But anyway the A330 cannot fly all the Lufthansa routes currently operated by the A340. The 340 can fly at least 2,000 miles more. Add that with a quad they don't have to worry about conforming to ETOPS.
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2688 posts, RR: 59 Reply 3, posted (13 years 6 months 6 days ago) and read 1769 times:
Definitely right about the A340 vs. A330 range thing (talking -300 models in each case). However, relating this to the original posting; Where does Lufthansa fly that requires more than 180 ETOPS (A330 currently has) certification?
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7719 posts, RR: 17 Reply 4, posted (13 years 6 months 6 days ago) and read 1760 times:
For the most part ETOPS 180 minute certification is not a limiting factor for European airlines. As their long haul flights are transatlantic or over Eurasia to the Far East or south into Africa. The only place where ETOPS 180 and ETOPS 207 become critical for airlines are on long transpacific flights and I think also in over the pole flight.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
Trvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 22 Reply 5, posted (13 years 6 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1753 times:
Because they are being strong-armed by DASA and Airbus!! No....but I agree that the A340 had come into Lufthansa's fleet rather early in the program's life and LH just decided to center their fleet around Airbus with the arrival of the A320.
Avion From Bouvet Island, joined May 1999, 2205 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (13 years 6 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1746 times:
Lufthansa has said that the 777 is from their experiemce equally expensiveto operate. They are keeping and eye on the 777 through Star Alliance partners united and lauda. The 777 is much heavier and makes the advantage of two engines zero.
Gerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 33 Reply 7, posted (13 years 6 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1732 times:
I wonder however what will happen, once Airbus offers an A333 with increased range.
Now, Airbus offers the A333 with a MTOW of 233t and a range with max. pax of 10'400 km. Depending on market outlook and expected costs, Airbus perhaps decides to offer an A333 with slightly increased range.
dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
Amir From Syria, joined Dec 1999, 1254 posts, RR: 12 Reply 8, posted (13 years 6 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1715 times:
I think Ahem gave a very reasonable and logical explanation.
The mian issue is the fact that when LH started getting interested in the A340, the 330 was not really known yet. Besides the main issue is a range issue. The A330 can only be more efficient on the lng run if flown over rather mid range routes. In my opinion the A330 is the plane most suitable for the Asian markets to feed the trunk routes, high density and flighttime 2-5 hours.
It might even be an option for LH to get some A330, after all they don't have a replacement equipment for their A300-600 and A310-300 which are to be replaced by A340 on the Middleast and Africa routes. SR for example is using their A330-200 for this regions, with much success.
Hisham From Lebanon, joined Aug 1999, 701 posts, RR: 12 Reply 9, posted (13 years 6 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1691 times:
They don't need ETOPS 180 certification to fly twins from Frankfurt to Sao Paulo?
I don't think Lufthansa would have bought the A330 even if it had the range. The A340 are more efficient on very long routes. This is why Airbus developed two models instead of one. As Amir said, the A330 is more efficient only at flight times below 5-6 hours. Lufthansa uses its A340s for much longer routes where the A340 is more efficient. One of the reasons is that the A340's engines can operate closer to their ideal efficiency. This is because an A340 engine is required to have only 25% more thrust than needed for normal flying while the A330 engine must have 50% excess thrust.
Ahem From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (13 years 6 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1683 times:
>>>They don't need ETOPS 180 certification to fly twins from Frankfurt to Sao Paulo? <<<
Correct. I can show you the exact routing if you want to see it.
>>>I don't think Lufthansa would have bought the A330 even if it had the range<<<
According to Airbus, the A330-300 does have the range (5600 nm) for most routes currently served by Lufthansa's A340 fleet including FRA-GRU, FRA-LAX, FRA-NRT, FRA-BKK, FRA-JNB etc, etc.
Why can't Airbus simply add a few extra fuel tanks to the 333 and do away with the A340 altogether? The argument that a twin cannot be economical on ultra long-haul routes is losing credibility.
>>>Lufthansa uses its A340s for much longer routes where the A340 is more efficient. <<<
Only about half of LH's 340 sectors are over 12 hours which is where the "efficiency" of the A340 becomes noticeable.
>>>One of the reasons is that the A340's engines can operate closer to their ideal efficiency. This is because an A340 engine is required to have only 25% more thrust than needed for normal flying while the A330 engine must have 50% excess thrust. <<<
??? The economics of twins have been proven since the first A300 rolled out in 1970.
>>>Now, Airbus offers the A333 with a MTOW of 233t and a range with max. pax of 10'400 km. <<<
Why didn't Airbus just do this in the first place and not have the A340? It makes no sense to have a greater MTOW version of the 333 competing with the 342/343.
>>>Lufthansa has said that the 777 is from their experiemce equally expensiveto operate<<<
When did LH operate the 777? Remember the cost savings of twins are not limited to their performance---less maintenance, less spares, etc....
When the A340 was launched in the early 1990's it provided the airlines with a long haul aircraft that was smaller in size but similar in range to the 747-400.
I still think Airbus would have made it a twin if the technology of super high-bypass engines was available in the late 1980's.
Amir From Syria, joined Dec 1999, 1254 posts, RR: 12 Reply 12, posted (13 years 6 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1673 times:
Well iam afraid we are starting a discussion about Twins being more efficient than 4 Engine planes. In general and in most cases it is more efficient (some exceptions are the Bae146, Avro stuff) but in this case it has been proved that the 330 is only then more efficient compared to the A340 when the range is shorter
And for flights where blocktime is about 4-6 hours. Besides it is the specific case of LH. The official max. range of an aircraft is one thing and the range in which it remains efficient can be a different thing.
Boeing has a certain advantage over Airbus in that direction. Think of the 757 and the 777 both can be flown quite efficient on routes ranging between 2000-5000 miles
Wheras airbus is a bit less flexible in that direction.
When LH originally deceided for the A340 it eyed the very long range routes, mainly
South America (SAO,BUE), US West coast and Fareast. Afterwards it started deploying the A340 on more routes where a A300 was too small and a 747 too big.
Meanwhile, you are right, only 50% of the routes operated by the 340 do utilize it's unique range cababilities.
I don't think that adding fuel tanks to the existing A330 will solve the problem, since it will decrease the payload weight thus having some weight limitations. Don't forget that LH is transporting huge amounts of Cargo on the A340, which it wuld not have been able to do with a 330 or a 777.
LH even tried something similar by equiping two A310's (in 1992 if iam not mistaken)
With additional tanks (D-AIDN, AIDM) mainly to serve the YMQ and YYZ routes where a 747 was simply too expensive (Low yield routes) and after several years it turned out to be everything but efficient .
Avion From Bouvet Island, joined May 1999, 2205 posts, RR: 8 Reply 14, posted (13 years 6 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1647 times:
>>Boeing has a certain advantage over Airbus in that direction. Think of the 757 and the 777 both can be flown quite efficient on routes ranging between 2000-5000 miles.Wheras airbus is a bit less flexible in that direction.<<
Its true that the 757 has more flexibility than the A321, but the A321 is way more economical on short hops because its less heavy.
Hisham From Lebanon, joined Aug 1999, 701 posts, RR: 12 Reply 15, posted (13 years 6 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1631 times:
Yes the economics of twins have been proven, except on ultra-long ranges. It's the 777's job to prove it.
How could Airbus not have the A340? It's filling 10,000 to 16,000 km range section. The A330 can never go this far unless you start putting fuel in the cabin! The A330's wing has less space for fuel than the 340's because it is more reinforced to counteract lift. In the A340 the engines do this job.
By the way, how many airlines are currently operating their 777-200ER on very long routes (10 to 13,000 km)?
Ahem From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (13 years 6 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1617 times:
>>>Yes the economics of twins have been proven, except on ultra-long ranges. It's the 777's job to prove it.<<<
So why does the 777LR fly farther, faster, and [apparently] cheaper than the 340NG?
>>>How could Airbus not have the A340? It's filling 10,000 to 16,000 km range section. The A330 can never go this far unless you start putting fuel in the cabin! The A330's wing has less space for fuel than the 340's because it is more reinforced to counteract lift. In the A340 the engines do this job.<<<
Simple. Take a 340, remove two of the engines, reinforce the wing, and add more powerful engines. Would still be capable of the same range, would it not?
>>>By the way, how many airlines are currently operating their 777-200ER on very long routes (10 to 13,000 km)?<<<
Quite a few. But there are very few air routes in the world greater than 10,000 km to begin with.
Hisham From Lebanon, joined Aug 1999, 701 posts, RR: 12 Reply 19, posted (13 years 6 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1598 times:
No, it would not be capable of the same range. Your plan is the best way to make an A330 out of an A340. But an A330 cannot fly more than 10,000 km.
When you reinforce an A340 wing, you have less space for fuel.
If Airbus wanted to make only one model, then it should have build neither the A330 nor the A340. It should have made a twin capable of flying both meduim and ultra long haul, something like a 777. The A330 cannot play this role.
But Airbus intentionally built two models because they thought that quads are better for long haul.
If the 777LR can fly cheaper than the 340, then twins would have proven their worth as ultra long haul aircraft. But you have to keep in mind that the 777 has more capacity, which reduces costs per passenger.
Amir From Syria, joined Dec 1999, 1254 posts, RR: 12 Reply 21, posted (13 years 6 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1566 times:
I think Hisham is right concerning adding fuel tanks to the A330. Further i do see another point. Even if you manage to add extra fuel tanks, Payload will go down and the bird will simply get too heavy thus making it necessary to change the engines which is alomst as complex as designing a new plane!
Hisham: iy salem albak. Inshallah al Awdaa bitdel hadiaeh andkon wa annaa
ZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5563 posts, RR: 38 Reply 22, posted (13 years 6 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1555 times:
Some posts said "the A 330 can not fly more than 10'000 km". It depends on the type. The -200 has a rage of 11500 km. Fact is that the A 330-200 is together with the B 767 the most economic aircraft for the north atlantic.
Amir From Syria, joined Dec 1999, 1254 posts, RR: 12 Reply 23, posted (13 years 6 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1555 times:
It is true that the A330 can fly such a distance but it will be like flying 7000 KM wiht a A300-600 or 4000 KM with a A320 which means heavy payload restrictions. Once again it's the question of possible technical limits versus economical feasability!
The A330-200 and 767 could be the most efficient for the US Eastcoast- Europe operation but definately not for the Westcoast-Europe!
Beside this the 767 doesn't offer so much cargo capacity which an A340 does offer, so again it will be different by airlines according to their PAx/Cargo priorities
Airbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 10 Reply 24, posted (13 years 6 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1556 times:
Ahem....do u realize that although the twins A330 and quads A340 are in the same family of widebodies Airbus planes, they also have the same size.!!same capacity.!!
just they are differ in ranges....wats the point of adding a few fuel tanks and make the ranges the same!?!? and do consider the economics?!!?
Hisham....SQ is not getting rid of their A340s..they loved their 340s...economic to operate...not expensive maintainanec...etc...it is just that Boeing was offering SQ to get rid of their A340s and buy their 777s at a cheaper price!!!(if i m not wrong) or they are goin to get 2 777s and only adding little amount of money by just giving a A340.....simply that the 777 is more expensive..it is almost the same price as a Jumbo 747(but i think Airbus is goin to break Boeing's 30 years Jumbo monopoly :-( ....A340 is way cheaper than 777 and has a better performance.....
Sammyk From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1686 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (13 years 6 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1534 times:
Airbus Lover, care to back up all that you said? If SQ was so in love with their A340s then why did they go out and place an order for upto 77 777s? OK, I know, originally it was planned that they would replace the A310s. I just don't think the A340 lived up to its expectations, just like the MD-11 that was offered to them.
Also, the deal with Boeing was, that if SQ could not sell these A340s on their own, then Boeing would take them off their hands. Remember now, SQ has a leasing arm, known as SALE, which could probably market these aircraft pretty sucessfully. So we shall see.