Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Do We Really Need The A340-600?  
User currently offlineDelta763ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2462 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

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineA320FO From Austria, joined Oct 2000, 211 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2413 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 ?????


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 7141 posts, RR: 53
Reply 2, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2395 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
User currently offline0A340 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 268 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2397 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.

My $0.02

User currently offlineOlympiceagle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2390 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.

User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2380 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?

User currently offlineRisingmoon777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2330 times:

Nothing is wrong with the A340-600, what makes u think it rediculous.....?

I want that plane flying where ever I am standing.

(formerly baec777xx)

User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4534 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2325 times:

The 777-200LR (along with the 747X) will be the longest range airliner, with a range of 8800nm, vs. the A340-500's 8500nm.

User currently offlineTygue From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2325 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.

User currently offlineHkgspotter1 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2310 times:


All your posts show your a Boeing fan so its not a surprise you dont think the A346 is not a good idea.

The A346 is faster then the A342/3 so its going to give Boeing more of a run for their money.

Airbus will be the market leader, just wait and see.

User currently offlineOO-AOG From Switzerland, joined Dec 2000, 1426 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2283 times:

Yes we do.   I love them

Falcon....like a limo but with wings
User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5601 posts, RR: 32
Reply 11, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2274 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.

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...
Do We Really Need The 7e7? posted Wed Sep 17 2003 06:32:47 by Thaigold
Do We Really Need Meals On Short Hops? posted Tue Nov 30 2004 08:46:00 by JumboJim747
Why Do We Still Need The 1989 B 747-400? posted Wed Jun 6 2001 11:38:57 by United Airline
Do Cargo Airlines Really Need The A380? posted Fri Aug 31 2001 19:47:06 by BlueJet
KLM Stopover In Bonaire:do We Got Off The A/c? posted Fri Sep 22 2006 09:02:19 by RootsAir
QR And The A340-600 posted Mon Jan 30 2006 17:11:28 by BHXDTW
The Future Of The A340-600 With Virgin Atlantic posted Sat Jan 21 2006 00:22:32 by CX747
What Do We Really Look For When Booking A Flight? posted Wed Mar 9 2005 21:39:36 by Mikesairways
How Much Do We Really Know? posted Sun Aug 15 2004 10:37:43 by SonOfACaptain
What Do We Think Of The New T1 In YYZ? posted Sun Aug 8 2004 06:40:04 by YYZACGUY