Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Was Wrong With The A342?  
User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2177 posts, RR: 5
Posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 10512 times:

I think we can say "was" because no A342 has been built for a while, and only very few were built (iirc ~ 30). Also, their operators such as AF and LH got rid of them quickly.

What was wrong with the A342 then?

Please no answers such as "the 777 is better", because, irregardless of how better it is, it is also MUCH larger!

However, the day these beauties will leave the skies will be a very sad day for aviation


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Josh Akbar - NYCAviation



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Fabio Laranjeira - Contato Radar



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Allen Yao



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Je89 W.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter Unmuth-VAP



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Azman Noorani




When I doubt... go running!
43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4741 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 10475 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

nothing except that they were able to make the A343 fly as far as the original A342s and with more capacity!

User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2177 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10325 times:

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 1):
nothing except that they were able to make the A343 fly as far as the original A342s and with more capacity!

Sorry to be picky, but what if one does not need the capacity of an A343? Doesn't it make more sense to fly a shorter, lighter A342? Both could be easily operated side by side like the 332 and 343 commonly are, or the 332 and the 333.

And if I read Airbus' data, the A342 is supposed to have more range... (I know this is Airbus' data and this should be regarded with caution...) The 342 claims 14,800 km whereas the 343 claims 13,350 km...
http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...0a340/a340-200/specifications.html
http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...0a340/a340-300/specifications.html



When I doubt... go running!
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 10299 times:

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 2):
And if I read Airbus' data, the A342 is supposed to have more range... (I know this is Airbus' data and this should be regarded with caution...) The 342 claims 14,800 km whereas the 343 claims 13,350 km...

I believe those A342 range figures are for the A340-213X, the high gross weight version, of which however only one was built.


User currently offlineLuisca From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 10292 times:

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 2):
Sorry to be picky, but what if one does not need the capacity of an A343? Doesn't it make more sense to fly a shorter, lighter A342? Both could be easily operated side by side like the 332 and 343 commonly are, or the 332 and the 333.

I think the problem was that the savings (vs the A343) were not significant enough to justify using this smaller aircraft. Basically if you needed a smaller aircraft then all you needed to do was just use an A332.

Airbus finished killing its own airplane when they increased the MTOW on the A343, this allowed the A343 to have almost the same range as the A342 but with lower CASM.

Airbus tried to sell the A342X (A340-8000X) as a Very Long Range aircraft, but only one was sold. (to the sultan of Brunei)


User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2177 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 10266 times:

Thanks

Your comments make sense  Smile  Smile



When I doubt... go running!
User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 10155 times:

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 2):
Sorry to be picky, but what if one does not need the capacity of an A343? Doesn't it make more sense to fly a shorter, lighter A342? Both could be easily operated side by side like the 332 and 343 commonly are, or the 332 and the 333

Here's the deal. Unless you need the range 342 offered, you could fly a 333 for the same fuel cost, carry more people and cargo, and go almost as far. If you needed the range, the 343 went just as far, and offered the extra capacity if you needed it, and wasn't really much more to run either.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6882 posts, RR: 63
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 10123 times:

When will people learn? It was a niche airliner built just for CO and DL!!!

Hang on, I may be getting mixed up here...  worried 


User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 9953 times:

I flew it with LH three times, a very nice aircraft. Probably the A343 has better economics and there are too few routes where you really need that range advantage.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12134 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 9892 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 7):
It was a niche airliner built just for CO and DL!!!

LOL

Quoting Thorben (Reply 8):
I flew it with LH three times, a very nice aircraft.

Yeah, very impressive. I really liked those 12,000'+ take-off rolls on DFW's 13,401' long 17R in August when it is 105 degrees (F). Of course, the A-340-200's longer brother, the A-340-300 used up just as much runway. Gotta love those four hairdriers.

The B-777-200/ER is a better airplane.

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Thread starter):
Please no answers such as "the 777 is better", because, irregardless of how better it is

Opps, sorry. The devil (Boeing?) made me do it.


User currently offlineInterpaul From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 409 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 9873 times:

Quoting Luisca (Reply 4):
but with lower CASM.

Maybe a stupid question, but what's CASM?

Cheers
Jan


User currently offlineMarcoT From Italy, joined May 2005, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 9817 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
Yeah, very impressive. I really liked those 12,000'+ take-off rolls on DFW's 13,401' long 17R in August when it is 105 degrees (F). Of course, the A-340-200's longer brother, the A-340-300 used up just as much runway. Gotta love those four hairdriers.

The B-777-200/ER is a better airplane.

You know, a bit of harmless bragging about performances, hairdriers and the likes is ok, but when someone let's all this clouds his judgement to the point of making such senseless remarks there's a problem.

The 772ER has a significant margin in thrust to weight ratio and nobody will dispute that is somewhat bigger than the usual twin vs quad unaivodable margin. Yet in the one engine off scenario the A343 at MTOW beats the 772ER at MTOW by a similar margin... This meant that in most cases the A343 use all this runway lenght just because it _legally_ can, whereas the 772ER (or any similar big twin) cannot.

The A343 does not come up short in short field take off performance even compared to other quads. I humbly suggest that you educate yourself about the fact that -for instance- AF A343 does SXM-CDG nonstop, while all 747 services from SXM to Europe where/are forced to a tech stop.
Naturally a 772ER (or a A330 for that matter) is nowhere ever remotly capable of that ...



Too short space for my favorite hopelessly long winded one liner
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9625 times:

Quoting Interpaul (Reply 10):
Maybe a stupid question, but what's CASM?

CASM is what the plane costs to operate per Average Seat Mile


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9625 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
The B-777-200/ER is a better airplane.

Its not the same class though. The 777-100 would have been boeings equivilamt to the A342


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9532 times:

The basic problem is the OEW is negligible between the A342X and the A343X. Somewhere between 1-3 tons, i can't remember off the top of my head, but i remember it's quite surprising. So why limit your revenue potential by ordering the A342. For the large part, the reason the A342 is noted as having the longer range than the A343, is because of the extra weight of passengers the A343 must carry. If the A343 was filled with the same number of pax than the A342, the A343 wouldn't be too far off.

So in short the A342 has no big advantage over the A343.

Of course, before the two were enhanced the A342 had a larger range advantage and was worthwhile.


User currently offlineBreiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1917 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 9400 times:

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 2):
(I know this is Airbus' data and this should be regarded with caution...)

Do you mean that Airbus does not know the performances of their own planes?
Or that they deliberately provide wrong information?
That was quite a strange statement.


User currently offlineAzza40 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1052 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 9380 times:

i dont think the 342 was made for big sales.

Aaron  sly 



Not been on here for a good 2/3 years!
User currently offlineBirdwatching From Germany, joined Sep 2003, 3818 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 9353 times:

So I guess that 5 years down the road the guys at Airevents.de might need to charter one for all the people who need the 342 in their log? Big grin

I just checked mine, in my whole life I flew on the dash 200 only once, from SCL to EZE on LV-ZPO on July 31, 1999.

One less thing to worry about!

Soren  santahat 


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Yevgeny Pashnin




All the things you probably hate about travelling are warm reminders that I'm home
User currently offlineLuisca From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 9353 times:

Quoting MarcoT (Reply 11):
You know, a bit of harmless bragging about performances, hairdriers and the likes is ok, but when someone let's all this clouds his judgement to the point of making such senseless remarks ...

Marco, you really need a drink man, read tow lines from the last 2 lines of the statement you are refuting and you will see he was joking.

Some people take A vs B way to seriously.


User currently offlineDoug_Or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3402 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 9353 times:

Cost per Available Seat Mile.


When in doubt, one B pump off
User currently offlineBreiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1917 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9276 times:

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Thread starter):
I think we can say "was" because no A342 has been built for a while

Rightly so since Airbus stopped its production in 2002.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 6):
Here's the deal. Unless you need the range 342 offered, you could fly a 333 for the same fuel cost, carry more people and cargo, and go almost as far. If you needed the range, the 343 went just as far, and offered the extra capacity if you needed it, and wasn't really much more to run either.

That's the point. The A340-200 became kind of redundant:
A330-200 256 pax on 6400 nm
A340-200 263 pax on 7450 nm
A330-300 295 pax on 5600 nm
A340-300 295 pax on 7300/7500 nm


User currently offlineMarcoT From Italy, joined May 2005, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9207 times:

Quoting Luisca (Reply 18):
Some people take A vs B way to seriously.

Guilt as charged, but it is my character, and the problem -generally speaking- it is that it is not as much a war, more a constant A aggression, and I suffer also from Don Chisciotte delusion  Smile



Too short space for my favorite hopelessly long winded one liner
User currently offlineLuisca From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9174 times:

Quoting MarcoT (Reply 21):
Guilt as charged, but it is my character, and the problem -generally speaking- it is that it is not as much a war, more a constant A aggression, and I suffer also from Don Chisciotte delusion

But you have to remember that from a Boeing nuts point of view there is a constant aggression from A cheerleaders towards B.

I used to take A vs. B too seriously, until one day fighting back and forth with Keesje (how surprising!) I realized that I was not going to change his mind and he would still keep writing (in my opinion) his usual useless dribble. Then I decided not to take the A vs. B thing personally, how many A.net members do you know personally? probably 0, so what use is it to try to change there minds.

Relax, you love A, I love B, have a margarita and enjoy your Friday.


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6882 posts, RR: 63
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9139 times:

Quoting Luisca (Reply 22):
have a margarita and enjoy your Friday.

Margarita? MARGARITA?! What's wrong with Gin & Tonic?! Typical! You margatita lovers are so blinkered. Gin is so much better than tequila. Wake up! Gin far outsells tequila worldwide. It gets you drunk 14% faster! It costs 8% less per ml. No contest! Sheesh!


User currently offlineLuisca From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9125 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 23):
Margarita? MARGARITA?! What's wrong with Gin & Tonic?! Typical! You margatita lovers are so blinkered. Gin is so much better than tequila. Wake up! Gin far outsells tequila worldwide. It gets you drunk 14% faster! It costs 8% less per ml. No contest! Sheesh!

Don't blame me, I am a quarter Mexican, I just suggested Margarita because it is a relaxing drink in my opinion.

I cant drink tonic, it makes me wanna puke. I personally drink 8 year old Abuelo (Panamanian aged rum) on the rocks. (I am 3/4 Panamanian)


25 CRGsFuture : So guys, with the A342 what airlines still operate them?
26 PM : 28 were built and one (a Sabena plane leased to Air France) has been written off. Of the remaining 27, SAA has 6 Aerolineas Argentinas has 4 Royal Jo
27 Thorben : Care to explain why? Because it has weight restrictions in hot and high places?
28 FlyDreamliner : Well, a 747 is a much larger aircraft.... It has to carry less fuel to get off at SXM because of higher structural weight. Silly people. Vodka has yo
29 Post contains images PM : Yeah, Randy promoted Vodka on his blog a couple of weeks ago but the very next day Leahy issued a statement saying that he could prove that Gin taste
30 A342 : Again, the 772 has to be compared to the A333/343.
31 Boeingguy1 : Thorben, take a chill pill. He was joking, let it go.
32 MD-90 : But that meant more A343 sales, so it was good thing.
33 IRelayer : Please no words like "irregardless". That word you are looking for is "regardless". The 777-200ER IS a better aircraft, and it is not that much large
34 Jcf5002 : so what? now we've dropped the A vs B war and made it the M vs GT war? Personally, as a good 'ol American I'll take whiskey any day of the week... um
35 Iluv2pilot : The A340 is not a good looking airplane.
36 Post contains images RJ111 : Haha great April Fools joke. She's stunning in RJ's livery.
37 Jseesue : The A340-200 is the physical incarnation of Airbus' socialist manufacturing at its most wasteful and least market-driven. It was an experiment in larg
38 RJ111 : Somebody please tell me Jseesue's existence on this site is some sick April Fools joke gone too far.
39 AvFan4ever : Absolutely correct. Industry insiders all know this (starting with Leahy), yet the users of this forum continue to debate the obvious.
40 Boeing744 : A little off topic, but is the A342 as infamously underpowered as the A343?
41 SparkingWave : The A340-200 is a graceful plane that looks very official. I think it's a symbolic aircraft for Airbus because it proved that Airbus could manufacture
42 DLKAPA : CASM = Cost per Available Seat Mile. Basically when you break it down, it's how much it costs the airline to fly one seat on the airplane a distance
43 Post contains images Joost : The A340-200 also never was the plane it was intended to be. It should have been built with the infamous PW fan, but the engine was not there when the
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...
What Was Wrong With The 747-300? posted Sat Feb 16 2002 20:00:15 by Airplanetire
What Was Wrong With DL 116? posted Mon Sep 4 2006 09:41:11 by JMO-777
What Went Wrong With The Unducted Fan Engine? posted Mon Jan 16 2006 22:24:47 by 1337Delta764
What Went Wrong With The Engine Markings? posted Mon May 31 2004 04:26:37 by Arcano
CN-235: What Was Wrong With It? posted Thu Apr 22 2004 07:07:22 by LVZXV
What Is Wrong With The SQ Website posted Wed Apr 3 2002 11:47:12 by Ryanb741
What Is Wrong With The MD11? posted Wed Jul 11 2001 22:24:23 by SK A340
What Is Wrong With The 767 posted Sun Apr 22 2001 22:40:55 by Critter592
What's Wrong With The A330? posted Thu Nov 30 2000 18:40:19 by Bigo747
What's Wrong With The DC-10? posted Tue Oct 3 2000 16:23:00 by Tripleseven