Delta763ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (13 years 9 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 1502 times:
I find this sort of ridiculous, to develop a stretch version of the A340, the -600. Where's the need? Boeing's idea to stretch the Boeing 777 was great, but the A340-600 is not really needed now that Airbus plans to develop its giant, A3XX. What do you think?
Fly Delta Jets
A320FO From Austria, joined Oct 2000, 211 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (13 years 9 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 1453 times:
The A340-600 still is considerably smaller than the A3XX and aimed at operators that already have A340-200/300 in their fleet. It's purpose is to replace the DC10/MD11/L1011 and to a certain extend the B747-100/200.
The 777-300 follows the same intentions, to satisfy the existing operators of the -200 version, with greater capacity. But on the Boeing side, the 777-300 is coming close to the 747, endangering it's success. Airbus' current product and future product range doesn't have have that problem.
So Delta763ER, isn't it the other way around, that Boeing didn't do too well with stretching the B777 ?????
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6451 posts, RR: 54
Reply 2, posted (13 years 9 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1435 times:
Do we really need the A340-600?
The answer is NO.
This planet would easily survive without an A340-600.
But that's not what counts.
What counts is that Airbus management thinks that some airline companies will find that it's the best plane to fulfil their needs. And an unknown number of airlines will actually find it so over the next decade or two.
Therefore we cannot avoid having the -600 (and -500) with us.
In the former Soviet Union you could buy any type of car you wanted, as long as it was a Lada. Do we really need to have the choise between 500 different car models?
Best regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
0A340 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 266 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (13 years 9 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1437 times:
The 340NG is not just the 340-600, it is also the 340-500. One represents extention in capacity, and the second extention in range. Both share development costs, which mainly comprises modified wing and new engines, as well as some minor (?) overall improvements.
Up until now, and very well until 2006, the 340-600 will be Airbus' flagship in terms of capacity, while the 340-500 will be the world's longest ranger - according to Airbus, at least.
So, who needs the 340-600? - Those airlines whose needs exceed the 300 pax capacity for the 6500 range, and those airlines whose needs exceed the 8000nm range for 315 pax.
Olympiceagle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 9 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1430 times:
Well you think that nobody needs them...well alot of airlines need this aircraft..one airline that I belive needs it the most is Olympic...During the summer NY to Athens is booked everyday startin early in june until the end of the Summer and you know how many people the 340-300 takes...so the 600 will take double the amount and will open up more seats for A trip Ny via Athens.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 9 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1420 times:
Yes, we need this aircraft for current RR Trent 777 operators who don't want to buy the GE90 777-200LR & 300ER and for unhappy CFM56 A340-200/300 operators who want more power and passenger capacity like Singapore Airlines, Olympic Airways and Cathay Pacific?
Tygue From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (13 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 1365 times:
Do we really need anything more than a 767-200? No, of course not. Hell. We don't need aircraft, period. The world survived just fine for billions of years without airplanes.
Enough with the sarcasm
I think the -600, -500 variations of the A340 could be a very good thing for airbus. It's the biggest bird they've got right now, something like 11 meters longer than the Boeing 747-400. It offers increased range and passenger capacity... of course airlines are going to be interested.
I think the new A318, A340-500,-600, and the A3XX will most likely bring Airbus ahead of boeing, as far as orders are concerned. The folks over in Toulouse seem to be concerned with development right know, instead of marketing and gathering firm orders. Y'all just watch. In a year or so, folks at Boeing will be on their ass wondering how the hell they can catch up to the boom in tiny-haul and mega-haul aircraft.
Airbus seems to realize that the 767/757/737/A319/A320/A321 market has been beaten to death already. They're expanding both ends of the spectrum.
ZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 35
Reply 11, posted (13 years 9 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1314 times:
The 340-600 and the 777-300LR are in the same category. The airlines have the choice. Some choose the A, some the B, it depends on what they already have in their fleets. The more competition the better. It would be very boring to have only one airliner in each category.
Swissair for example is happy to replace their MD 11 with the 340-600, to have an only Airbus fleet. The 777 would not fit very well into its fleet.