Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Emirates "In Talks" For 20 A340-600E  
User currently offlinePanAm_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 4189 posts, RR: 89
Posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 17551 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

Maurice Flanagan, Emirates' group managing director has given an interview in which he discusses many aspects of EKs fleet. He spoke of a decision on the A350 / B787 by May, which I posted details of in this thread by Wings in which he pushes for the 787-10.

Now with the following fair use excerpt he confirms an interest in the A346E should Airbus go ahead with the model.

By James Cordahi and Andrea Rothman
Flanagan said he expected to choose between Boeing and Airbus long-range mid-size models by April or May.
in reference to A350/B787

Emirates is also ``in talks'' with Airbus about purchasing an extended range version of its A340-600, which would be known as the A340-600E, Flanagan said. If Airbus chooses to develop the A340-600E, Emirates would be interested in buying as many as 20, he said. Such a plane would have longer range than Boeing's 777-300ER, which can fly about 8,500 nautical miles, he said.

``We never comment on ongoing campaigns,'' Airbus spokeswoman Ann Crozals said when asked about the project.

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com

If they are in talks with Airbus for an A340-600E, doesn't that contradict the recent comments by Mr Leahy reported by FI and discussed in this thread by Leelaw recently?

Regards, PanAm_DC10


Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
75 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1710 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 17526 times:

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Thread starter):
If they are in talks with Airbus for an A340-600E, doesn't that contradict the recent comments by Mr Leahy reported by FI and discussed in this thread by Leelaw recently?

Only if those discussions don't include any type of 340/777 fuel burn guarantees.

cheers


User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24951 posts, RR: 56
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 17505 times:

Why would they need A340-600s when they already have the superior 777-300ER in their fleet?


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineTifoso From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 17505 times:

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 1):
Only if those discussions don't include any type of 340/777 fuel burn guarantees.

Not exactly. The cash back offer was discussed because Airbus did not want to develop the A346E.

So, they either develop it, or offer a cashback. There in lies the contradiction, unless Airbus is willing to do both  Wink


User currently offlineTifoso From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 17476 times:

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 2):
Why would they need A340-600s when they already have the superior 777-300ER in their fleet?



Quoting (Thread starter):
Such a plane would have longer range than Boeing's 777-300ER, which can fly about 8,500 nautical miles, he said.


[Edited 2006-01-25 13:34:32]

User currently onlineBigB From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 607 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 17476 times:

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 2):
Why would they need A340-600s when they already have the superior 777-300ER in their fleet?

These would be the A340-600Es, not A340-600HGWs



ETSN Baber, USN
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 17476 times:

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Thread starter):
If they are in talks with Airbus for an A340-600E, doesn't that contradict the recent comments by Mr Leahy reported by FI and discussed in this thread by Leelaw recently?

Your point is well taken. However, it could be that the talks with EK about a possible A346E began before Airbus began reconsidered its strategy with regard to the A345/346 program as reported by FI earlier this week. Who knows at this stage whether Mr. Leahy was floating a trial balloon or making a concrete proposal.

[Edited 2006-01-25 13:43:46]

User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 17393 times:

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Thread starter):

If they are in talks with Airbus for an A340-600E, doesn't that contradict the recent comments by Mr Leahy reported by FI and discussed in this thread by Leelaw recently?

Interesting news PanAm. I don't even know what to say. Looks like Airbus may be withholding some information after all. I think that Airbus are studding all their options before they commit to anything further.

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 2):
Why would they need A340-600s when they already have the superior 777-300ER in their fleet?

The A340-600E would offer additional range + better economics.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlinePanAm_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 4189 posts, RR: 89
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 17393 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 1):
Only if those discussions don't include any type of 340/777 fuel burn guarantees

Thanks Shenzhen but it was more in reference as to whether Airbus would go ahead with the investment required to develop an A340-500 & A340-600 "Enhanced" model. This is a customer stating that they seem to be actively marketing a model to which they have not yet commited too and which Mr Leahy, to me, implied they had no intention of doing so.  Confused

Regards, PanAm_DC10



Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24951 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 17355 times:

My apologies, I should learn to read  Wink


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 17338 times:

Quoting Tifoso (Reply 3):

Not exactly. The cash back offer was discussed because Airbus did not want to develop the A346E.

I took his comments to be a whole new replacement for the A340 (eg a 777 stype supertwin), not a new version of the same aircraft.


User currently offlineWing From Turkey, joined Oct 2000, 1573 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 17275 times:

Does anybody have the list of number of the airplanes and their types they already have in their fleet?Thanks in advance.


Widen your world
User currently offlineTifoso From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 17275 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 11):
I took his comments to be a whole new replacement for the A340 (eg a 777 stype supertwin), not a new version of the same aircraft.

I don't think so.

Quoting Leahy:
“Is it a good investment [for Airbus] to spend a couple of billion dollars to get a better aircraft when you can solve the fuel burn problem with money?” asks Leahy.

Building a new aircraft for just 2 billion dollars is impossible. The 748 program is going to cost 4 billion dollars.

Leahy was most definitely referring to the A346E.


User currently offlineMauriceB From Netherlands, joined Aug 2004, 2490 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 17210 times:

Wouldn't suprise me if they order them, They really need more long-haul planes....  Yeah sure

User currently offlineLifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1923 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 17210 times:

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Thread starter):
f they are in talks with Airbus for an A340-600E, doesn't that contradict the recent comments by Mr Leahy reported by FI and discussed in this thread by Leelaw recently?

Maybe a little, but I can see Airbus top PR-man spinning a few things, just to keep some surprises in their sleeves for the coming year.

We had an extensive thread on A.net a while ago on an A340 a la the A350, which was based on an article in FI http://www.flightinternational.com/A...Enhanced+A340+to+take+on+777+.html

I think Airbus is just probing around to see if their A340-600E is sparking any interest from potential airlines. When there is sufficient interest from airlines, Airbus will give the -600E the go ahead later this year. However, to make sure other airlines buy the current version, they realize they need to compensate the airlines.



Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 17163 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 11):
took his comments to be a whole new replacement for the A340 (eg a 777 stype supertwin), not a new version of the same aircraft.

"Is it a good investment [for Airbus] to spend a couple of billion dollars to get a better aircraft, when you can solve the fuel burn problem with money?" asks Leahy...."I can agree a figure with a customer that reflects a fuel burn delta and run that out over 12 years and pay it to them."

Does Airbus develop "a replacement supertwin" for a couple of billion dollars?


User currently offlineLifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1923 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 17135 times:

Quoting Tifoso (Reply 13):
Building a new aircraft for just 2 billion dollars is impossible. The 748 program is going to cost 4 billion dollars.

Well, there are little development costs for the A340-600E. They can use the same type of aluminum lithium for the fuselage as they use in the A350. New engines, a new A350-like cabin and slight modifications on the wings and you're set to go.



Leahy was offering cash-back for customers in order to sell the current version of the A340-600, not the -600E.

Cheers!  wave 



Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 17116 times:

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 16):
I think Airbus is just probing around to see if their A340-600E is sparking any interest from potential airlines. When there is sufficient interest from airlines, Airbus will give the -600E the go ahead later this year. However, to make sure other airlines buy the current version, they realize they need to compensate the airlines.

Doesn't seem Leahy's comments were limited only to current versions of the A340, but any further development of the 340 as well.


User currently offlineTifoso From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 17079 times:

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 18):
Leahy was offering cash-back for customers in order to sell the current version of the A340-600, not the -600E.

From Leahy's quote it is clear that Airbus are debating whether to spend money on building an enhanced A346 , or on offering a cashback.

Wouldn't doing both become a little too expensive for them?

[Edited 2006-01-25 14:10:04]

User currently offlineClassicLover From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 4646 posts, RR: 23
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 17038 times:

In talks doesn't mean anything. Pan Am were in talks with Vickers for the VC10 back in the day and we all know where that went!

It would be mad if there were no talks happening on this matter really.

Trent.



I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
User currently offlineOrion737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 17038 times:

Will Emirates soon decide they have enough planes on order? That is one airline greedy for aircraft, lets hope they can fill all this huge capacity.

User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12673 posts, RR: 46
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 17038 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 19):
Doesn't seem Leahy's comments were limited only to current versions of the A340, but any further development of the 340 as well.

My interpretation agrees with Tifosi.

Spend $1-2b on an updated A340 or cover fuel difference costs for the current A345/6.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 16924 times:

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 1):
Only if those discussions don't include any type of 340/777 fuel burn guarantees.



Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 1):
Why would they need A340-600s when they already have the superior 777-300ER in their fleet?



Quoting Tifoso (Reply 3):
So, they either develop it, or offer a cashback. There in lies the contradiction, unless Airbus is willing to do both



Quoting Leelaw (Reply 6):
However, it could be that the talks with EK about a possible A346E began before Airbus began reconsidered its strategy with regard to the A345/346 program as reported by FI earlier this week.



Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 21):
In talks doesn't mean anything. Pan Am were in talks with Vickers for the VC10 back in the day and we all know where that went!

In all the 777 beats A340 festivities we haven't forgot they already ordered 18 A340-600's have we?  Wink


Great combination inbetween the 330/350 and A380 fleets IMO.


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 16899 times:

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 23):
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 19):
Doesn't seem Leahy's comments were limited only to current versions of the A340, but any further development of the 340 as well.

My interpretation agrees with Tifosi.

Spend $1-2b on an updated A340 or cover fuel difference costs for the current A345/6.

I agree, sorry if I was unclear. It's clearly an either or proposition, there won't be an A340E if Airbus initiates a "cash-back" sales scheme.


User currently offlineHS748 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 16899 times:

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 2):
Why would they need A340-600s when they already have the superior 777-300ER in their fleet?

What a stupid statement - clearly it's not superior or EK wouldn't be considering its competitor.


25 Astuteman : It is possible that Airbus are testing the water to see what responses they get to a) the A345/6E, and b) the cashback option on A345/6HGW's. Obvious
26 OyKIE : To me it seems like Airbus is still making up their mind. Of course Airbus wants to offer the better A340-600E, but they need to make a reasonable bus
27 FlyingHippo : It's good that Airbus is trying to come up with a product that can answer to the 773ER, I hope they can make it fast enough (and meet the expected per
28 Astuteman : About 2012 EIS, or 2011 "take to the skies", according to Airbus.
29 OldAeroGuy : Since the current A340 backlog is about three years worth of production, what provides the bridge for 2009-2011 given the low A340 order rate?
30 N60659 : I think this is a very realistic assessment. Airbus is trying to position itself according to market response. The cash payback option is a relativel
31 Glareskin : Or they will push the limits for the A350 further towards 773 size. Makes more sense IMO.
32 Post contains links WINGS : Actually no. They will be coming from the three following lines, A300/A310 A330-200/300 A340-300/500/600 A350-800/900 ( Airbus is planning on buildin
33 Atmx2000 : It also requires more cruise thrust than can be expected based on weight, so it has poorer aerodynamics. Which leaves more room for improvement if yo
34 JPair : Good question - I think Airbus will be eager to keep that line busy with further long haul orders. Note that the A330 and the A340 use the same assem
35 OldAeroGuy : Even if this was the case (see Reply 32) it still wouldn't address the A345/6 supply chain issues. Few suppliers appreciate a two gap in production.
36 Post contains links WINGS : From Airbus.com New buildings are being planned, including a dedicated final assembly line alongside the current long-range FAL in Toulouse, http://w
37 Killjoy : We shouldn't forget that Leahy said that they might be convinced to upgrade the A340 if the B777 were to gain a significant range advantage. The same
38 Post contains links Atmx2000 : All of what I was suggesting were minor changes except for the engine upgrade. Boeing is starting off with a significant advantage in a number of are
39 N60659 : Thanks for setting me straight on that. I don't disagree. However if that is the nature of the business, the suppliers can do very little about it. A
40 Atmx2000 : Of course maybe EK is trying to make Boeing+GE increase the capability of the 773ER. Boeing might be better off letting Airbus sink another billion o
41 Post contains images Killjoy : Yes, but Airbus has already upgraded the aerodynamics of the A350, and the basic shape is the same. I agree Boeing has a large advantage, but persona
42 Atmx2000 : The A350 is getting a new CFRP wing which is no doubt aimed at improving aerodynamics of the platform. The A346E that is being talked about would be
43 Atmx2000 : Does Finnair need such a large plane?
44 KrisYYZ : Wow, Im sorry but I don't understand why Airbus keeps putting band-aids on the A340 series. The A343X is great aircraft so is the A346/345, but you ca
45 Killjoy : This is true, of course. The end result would depend greatly on how successful those tweaks are, but I'm sure we can assume at least some would exist
46 Killjoy : Not right now, but I'm guessing they will. I saw a comment somewhere that indicated they could need a total of 18 widebodies within 10-15 years. At t
47 Gigneil : There is no doubt that an A340-600E could surpass the performance of the 777-300ER while getting close in fuel burn. What is unclear is what can Boein
48 N60659 : Possible, but up to this point, EK has never placed much emphasis on fuel efficiency. But with skyrocketing fuel prices, maybe they are beginning to
49 Atmx2000 : It's not the EK order alone I would imagine but the market potential for the 787-10. EK just gives a good launch order to start the program. On the o
50 11Bravo : This all makes me wonder what conversation we would be having if Airbus had used the funds for the A350 program and the A340 upgrades to build a new a
51 N60659 : True. However, at least from press reports, it was clear that EK made the most noise that the 789 was smaller than what they required and pushed hard
52 Glareskin : I don't see the problem of that. This would only mean that the enlarged 787 is competing the 777, so it is questionable if Boeing would consider this
53 Atmx2000 : True. If either the changes come soon enough so that they can be applied to new frames in existing unfilled orders (in the case of significantly upgr
54 MotorHussy : What a load of coddswollap. They often shoot themselves in the foot by commenting on campaigns before they're signed in triplicate! Regards MH
55 OldAeroGuy : Suppliers can do a lot about it. They can stop producing parts if the business case becomes unfavorable.
56 GARPD : In the same what many said the A346HGW will be superior? Really now, there is no way you, I or even Airbus will know that for certain. Sorry to nit p
57 N60659 : Sorry, I wasn't clearly stating what I actually meant. I agree, suppliers can stop producing items if the business case becomes unfavorable. Regardle
58 Rolfen : Aren't emirates breaking records with their orders? Are they planning to take over the world?
59 Sllevin : Only if oil prices don't go up. Airbus built its widebody fleet around the concept that higher operating costs would be offset by lower capital costs
60 N79969 : I think there is plenty of doubt about what Airbus can actually do with the 346.[Edited 2006-01-26 01:07:18]
61 FlyDreamliner : First off, look how well A340 is selling currently. You'd think they'd get the message to give up and maybe work on additional A350 variants to cover
62 Shenzhen : If a new narrow body is launched and in service by 2012, then Airbus could use a derivative of the new engine to substantially reduce the fuel burn on
63 Astuteman : Funnily enough, this is one of the areas where I think the A345/6 can be improved quite easily. Airbus have quoted parasitic drag of the A380 to be h
64 Atmx2000 : These are improvements made on completely new or revamped designs. The A346E isn't supposed to have extensive changes to the wing. Minor changes resu
65 OHLBU : Now this is pure speculation, but could it be that the 346E would also bring out the 345E? And if so could that be the hub-buster that QF is waiting f
66 Tifoso : Why not? SYD-LHR is not the only interesting ULR route for QF. If some of the SQ rumors are to be believed, it is entirely possible that they get 5 m
67 Post contains links Leelaw : Qantas Decides Against "Hub-Busters" http://www.qantas.com.au/regions/dyn.../details?ArticleID=2005/dec05/3370[Edited 2006-01-26 15:28:29]
68 RJ111 : They'd almost definately make an A345E if they went ahead with the A346E. We would probably be talking of a max range around 9700nm's. I am sceptical
69 Thorben : What would really be the difference between the A346HGW and the A346E? -new engines -new AL fuselage -better cabin -better wing (composite?) maybe als
70 Killjoy : If it can meet Qantas' requirements, definitely. And don't forget it could carry more cargo.
71 Post contains images Astuteman : The A345/6 is chasing a 7% - 9% fuel disadvantage, of which 6% - 8% can be realised from the suggested Trent "1500". Airbus seem to have managed 2% -
72 Atmx2000 : It's seems to me that there is a much bigger disadvantage during the cruise phase of flight, and perhaps a significant advantage during ascent and de
73 Post contains links N60659 : When we start analyzing based on percentages, I think we need to be very careful, primarily because it typically is not clear what datum we are compa
74 Thorben : The difference in OEW is around ten tons. The A350 is supposed to save eight tons compared to the A330. Therefore I would assume the A346E can be ten
75 Atmx2000 : The A350 has a composite wing. It's not clear how much of the weight savings comes from that.
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...
Leahy: "Still A Strong Market For The A340" posted Wed Jul 19 2006 22:01:23 by BoomBoom
$2 Mil. To "exercise" Train For MIA In Japan posted Wed Apr 26 2006 17:40:05 by Eksath
Emirates To Issue $550 Million In "Islamic Bonds" posted Sun May 22 2005 08:06:26 by Leelaw
Emirates In Talks For 60 New Planes posted Thu May 10 2001 21:56:09 by Cruising
"New" Braniff In 1981 posted Tue Nov 14 2006 00:16:45 by Magyarorszag
FedEx In The Movie "Castaway" posted Sat Nov 11 2006 16:15:07 by Shinkai
Dubai Could Bid For 20% Stake In Eads posted Thu Nov 9 2006 10:58:43 by Manni
Airblue Order A320 In Talks For A330 / A350 posted Wed Nov 1 2006 06:35:55 by PanAm_DC10
"New" 747 For Iran Air posted Mon Sep 18 2006 21:54:37 by NA
Nostalgic MEA In Dubai "1960s" posted Thu Sep 14 2006 20:13:38 by Cedars747