Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A340 Production  
User currently offlineFlyAA757 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1009 posts, RR: 0
Posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 818 times:

According to some info on the net, the current 'standard'(not -500/600) A340 backlog stands as follows.

-200 0
-300 52
-8000 1
----------
TOTAL=53

What are the current monthy production rates for the A340, and does AI intend to slow production due to the lack of orders? The A330 seems to be fairing much better, will it pick up the slack?

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGoA340 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 818 times:

The -8000 is now called the -200 (old -200 had less range than the current -300) -8000 stands for 8000 miles....Does this backlog includes the current Lan Chile orders and unannounced Air China orders??

User currently offlineFlyAA757 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1009 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 818 times:

This does not include the as yet unannounced/uncomfirmed LanChile order for 7 -300s. Nor does it include the rumored(which many seem to believe to be untrue)((Including me))CHINA Airlines(not Air China) order. I believe that was the number from January, so minus delivered a/c, and it is about right.

User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2236 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 818 times:

I wonder about the Lan/CAL orders as well. MAC seems to think that Airbus is waiting to compile composite orders to give Boeing a body blow announcement. And MAC generally knows his shit. Orders from both carriers for Airbus would surprise me. Lan especially. They went with Airbus on narrow-body and prefer the 777 over the 340. Chile, like many countries in its position, would benefit from ordering from both manufacturers, politically as well as economically. I can see Boeing and the State Dept. working the phones now through the crystal ball.

CAL less so. Why not cater to both. Politically, not such a great move as the US is the only country to support Taiwan's "independence". But economically, this is a small country and the load factors would seem a good fit for the 330/340s. Don't believe anything until the airline says it. A little leak here and there is a great way to get better offers.


User currently offlineYMQ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 817 times:

You should not forget that France sold Taiwan a bunch of Mirage planes..... I guess those governing in Taipei have not forgotten.... but i am pretty sure the French government will not let them forget so easily, especially since this was costly for France: ie Beijing was quite pissed off ....

User currently offlineTP343 From Brazil, joined May 1999, 312 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 821 times:

I can't undestand why for you the LA orders for A340s are surprising and improbable.
Don't forget that LANChile and TAM (Brazil) are building, together, a huge maintenance and training centre here in São Paulo/Guarulhos.
The engines of TAM's and LAN's A32X will be revised here, as well as the planes themselves and the crew training, including next-generation flight simulators.
This centre will have also facilites to revise A330s and train its crews, which by the way has a big comodity with the A340s and the A320series as well.

So, talking about operational and maintenance costs, the most sensible would be LAN order A330/A340! Where is the surprise/incomprehention? And more: the comodity between the A319/320/321/330/340 is fantastic and blow down costs for airlines!

Regards,

TP343, São Paulo, Brazil.


User currently offlineGoA340 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 817 times:

You are critisizing Airbus and Euro. governments pressuring countries to buy their products but at the same time you are wondering why China Airlines did not buy Boeing because America supports Taiwan!!! I think your view is not different than what you are blaming Airbus for...I think the A340 is an excellent choice for Lan, giving them the opprtunity later to order 330s with medium range capabilities and still conserve communality between types...These orders are for real Wingman and if you think the contrary, just wait and see the announcement.

User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 818 times:

Just to add some grist to this.

E-mail correspondence with a friend up in Taipei confirms to me that indeed Airbus's VP visited CAL and a deal is in the works.

There is no "loser" on any side in this order. It is split between Boeing and Airbus. It keeps the trade issue in balance as well. The ROC government values it's relationships with the US -and- Europe. CAL wants the 747-400 frieghter and it appears 13 of those plus a few more are on option, along with a few more 737-800s. They want the frieghters to replace the current aging fleet of 747-200s as well as reducing (not necessarily elinminating) dependency on services contracted out to other frieght carriers.

The A340 order and A330 HGW Memoranda of Understanding will fit CAL's growth and replacement needs to a very nice advantage for them.

Speaking of the A340, CAL's MD-11 routes to Europe and Australia need an aircraft that replaces it more in tune with ultra-long haul thinner capacity routes, not justifying a 777 or 747 size airplane.

It will also open up nonstop sectors that cannot be done from Taipei to Europe with the MD-11. Flights in question are the Taipei-Bangkok-Amsterdam, Taipei-Abu Dhabi-Rome, Taipei-Abu Dhabi-Frankfurt-Zurich runs. Some of this is due to political restrictions on overflights I believe and with a more range capable airplane, these stops may be reduced. The Australia/NZ flights are nonstops to SYD, BNE and AKL.

As to the A330-300HGW, this is a unique regional-to-long hauler that will posess some interesting capabilities which will come in handy. CAL's high frequency, short range flights to HKG frequently are frequently booked to capacity and then some, of note are the return traffic flights that have passengers connecting from US/Europe/Australia arrivals at HKG connecting onwards to Taiwan. The bulk of the traffic is the "shuttle passenger" to/from HKG that flies out in the morning, returning back later on in the afternoon.

For perspective, 33 flights a day average fly between Taipei and Hong Kong, versus 7-8 daily from Kaohsiung. (The domestic Taipei-Kaohsiung schedule makes the HKG traffic for all of Taiwan pale in comparison (G) The HKG arrival traffic at Kaohsiung Intl in the evening hours is impressive..several flights arrive withing a few minutes of eachother in the evening, now added to that Northwest Airlines DC-10 service from Osaka. The inbound immigrations area is -jammed- with people waiting in line to be cleared.

The HKG-Taiwan-HKG traffic is flown by CAL/EVA/CathayPacific/DragonAir/Thai with a single SIA and BA flight as well.

All of these are widebody equipment flights of course. Hence, the attention to making -the best- of your route authority and slot allocation with equipment that can move it. (G)

This -IS NOT- a US style deregulated airline operating environment where an airline can just pick and choose additional flights increasing frequency, schedule changes and so forth as they see fit, making an announcement of a schedule increase and calling the advertising people to broadcast it on one's local radio or tv station..Not at all! It's not that simple here.

You either use the right equipment and make the best of what you are allocated..or lose your traffic to your competitors who would be more than obliging to take the customers from you. It's that simple. Overall it's a very lucrative business for CAL and they need the lift to do it with.

Anyhow..just some observations on this..I'm gathering up some e-mail correspondence on another thread here. (G)

Regards
MAC_Vet


User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2236 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 817 times:

Where do you see a single criticism of Airbus or Europe in my posts? You guys wite English pretty well, do you comprehend it? As a matter of fact, I point out that Boeing and the State Dept. are probably working the phones at Lan as we speak. That wouild imply criticism of the US and Boeing.

The argument for commonality between narrow-bodies is strong. But not between narrows and wides. If the cost savings in training were at all significant, why wouldn't BA and UA and SIA and others have gone that route? One reason is that the move from narrows to wides is often a major milestone in a pilot's career and one that is well-planned for in advance. I highly doubt that carriers such as LH and UA mind providing the most in-depth and rigorous training possible when this happens. I just don't see LH calling in a 320 pilot and saying. "Hans, you're promoted to 340s flying to Asia. We will train you in 7 days thanks to commonality and off you go". I just don't buy it. Furthermore, strong pilot unions would not permit it.

No criticism of Europe or Airbus here. LAN prefers the 777, so if Boeing is able to to make a reasonable new offer, it would stand to reason that LAN would order the plane. No announcements from LAN for three weeks now. In his own words in the press release from the CEO's office, "the study is long and hard and it will continue. No further comments". That doesn't sound like like a firm commitment to me, it sounds like a request to Boeing to make a better offer so that LAN can justify buying the plane they really want and prefer.


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...
Airbus May Cut A340 Production posted Mon Mar 13 2006 21:45:00 by BoomBoom
A340 Production posted Wed Jul 21 1999 22:50:50 by FlyAA757
A340-300 - Is It's Production Nearing The End? posted Tue Jan 25 2005 16:50:09 by Gilesdavies
Airbus A340-200 Still In Production? posted Mon Jul 28 2003 09:58:08 by Flying Belgian
A340-500 Production Delays? posted Mon Jul 29 2002 19:33:22 by Chrisa330
Production Ended On A340-200? posted Tue Jul 23 2002 06:12:17 by Brons2
A340-300/200 Still In Production posted Fri Oct 19 2001 14:57:55 by 767-332ER
When Did The Production Of 772 And 773's End? posted Fri Jun 5 2009 17:00:43 by Weirdlinguist
787 Production Update posted Wed Jun 3 2009 08:58:08 by Rheinbote
LH A340 Parked At SFO posted Sun May 31 2009 12:04:29 by 777-500er
A340 Production posted Wed Jul 21 1999 22:50:50 by FlyAA757
Airbus A340-300 - Still In Production? posted Sun Nov 28 2010 06:53:04 by AlexA340B777
A340-300 - Is It's Production Nearing The End? posted Tue Jan 25 2005 16:50:09 by Gilesdavies
Airbus A340-200 Still In Production? posted Mon Jul 28 2003 09:58:08 by Flying Belgian
A340-500 Production Delays? posted Mon Jul 29 2002 19:33:22 by Chrisa330
Production Ended On A340-200? posted Tue Jul 23 2002 06:12:17 by Brons2
A340-300/200 Still In Production posted Fri Oct 19 2001 14:57:55 by 767-332ER