Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will A340 N/G Be Retire Early Like The MD11?  
User currently online747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3645 posts, RR: 2
Posted (4 years 7 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 18898 times:

With the A350XWB coming, will we see A340-600/500s being phase out of mainline passenger service early, like MD11s was?

114 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinedlphoenix From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 18812 times:

I think they will be the next niche airplane that is of high demand in the second hand market (like the 757 today).
- There are certain markets where 4 engines do make a difference and in some markets a 748i is too big.
- They are not as atractive to cargo carriers, this will drive the 2nd hand proce lower and make them more affordable.

DLP


User currently offlinejoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3170 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 18411 times:

There are a few important differences between the MD11 and the A340-5/600 make the future for the A340 look better:

1) The MD-11 was one single airplane variant, whereas the A340-5/600 makes part of a larger A330/A340/A350-family. Pilots can be trained with little extra training to fly the A330, A340 and A350 aircraft. It makes it feasible for a carrier to operate all family members alongside each other. As the A330 and A350 are looking towards a good feature, the A340 can still play a role.

2) McDonnell Douglas ceased to exist 7 years after the MD-11 entered service and Boeing never had a real good reason to keep on investing in the MD-11 design - as they were selling the 777 which was overall superior to the MD-11. This makes that the MD-11 suffered from a lack of upgrades and modifications. As long as Airbus is around, the aftercare will probably be better.

3) And, as stated above, for situations where ETOPS is still an issue (either routes that require 4 engines, or carriers that have trouble fulfilling all ETOPS-requirements), the A340-5/600 can still be interesting.


User currently offlinescouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3393 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 18337 times:

I guess quite a lot will depend of the second hand value of the 777 which is a better plane for 95% of the routes that you might want to use an A340 on. If the 777 remains relatively expensive compared to the A340 (which is likely as it's also in demand as a freighter conversion) then there will be interest in the A340 by second-tier operators.

Another factor will be the price of fuel, if it rockets again then the effect of the A340 price advantage will be reduced due to the 777s superior economy.


User currently offlineloalq From Switzerland, joined Jan 2007, 224 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 18189 times:

Out of curiosity, can someone give examples of existing routes where an A340 would be more suitable than a 777? And are these only because of ETOPS limitation?


"...this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped."
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6895 posts, RR: 76
Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 18035 times:

Quoting loalq (Reply 4):
Out of curiosity, can someone give examples of existing routes where an A340 would be more suitable than a 777? And are these only because of ETOPS limitation?

7772LR under ETOPS 180 cannot be more than 1225NM air distance from a suitable airport.
Let's up it, and make it go under LROPS240... the 772LR is still limited to 1640NM.
The above has driftdown and single engine cruise included...

On a single engine, it's limited to FL150 at MTOW, FL200 once you go below 340Tons, FL260 once you go below 260 tons, and above FL300 once you go below 220tons.

On the A345, one engine out gives you a cruise of above FL250 at 380T, and as long as you're below 340 tons, you can cruise at >FL300 with one engine out. At 380Tons, loose an engine, you driftdown to 28000, covering 383NM in 51 mins...
slap all that with the one engine out cruise under LROPS240 you can be 1640 - 1900NM away from any suitable airport at any time enroute depending on your weight. If you have a policy of keeping it not more than 180mins from a suitable diversion, you can be 1275 - 1300NM depending on weight again.

The major bonus apart from ETOPS requirements, would be your engine out cruise altitude... you won't have to worry about high mountaineous areas and single engine when the gross weights are still on the topside. The benefit of this is debatable, but more than 2 engines does provide flexibility to the crew's decision making... whether relevant or not, is something else...

As for the specific routes, am not the one to comment.

I am not a great fan of the A345/346 as I find the paper numbers of the 343 more to my taste! *grin*



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinePlunaCRJ From Uruguay, joined Nov 2007, 574 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 18019 times:

Quoting loalq (Reply 4):
Out of curiosity, can someone give examples of existing routes where an A340 would be more suitable than a 777? And are these only because of ETOPS limitation?

The A340 is better suited for long haul operations out of "hot and high" airports, such as JNB or BOG. That is partly the reason it makes sense for carriers such as SAA or IB to operate A340.

ETOPS wise, SCL-AKL, EZE-AKL, EZE-SYD and SYD-JNB are all classic ETOPS restricted routes.

Regards,


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5514 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 17737 times:

The carriers who really need A340s already have them.

The comparison to the 757 is apt, as the carriers who really need 757s also already have them, and the "strong secondary market" for the 757 is more or less a figment of people's imaginations. (If it weren't for FedEx, there would probably be about 60 757s sitting in the desert today.)

Most A340s will be retired comparatively early, probably by 2020, and replaced by either 787 or A350. Especially with the excessively heavy A340NG, the economics of replacing them will just be too compelling. And there is no P2F conversion, and given that an A333 P2F is coming I don't see one happening.

Operators who derive a substantial advantage from having four engines (SA, IB, and possibly a South American operator or two) may keep a chunk of the A340NG fleet running longer, but that is a small number of frames.


User currently offlinefx1816 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1400 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 15477 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 7):
(If it weren't for FedEx, there would probably be about 60 757s sitting in the desert today.)

If I were to venture a guess though, there are easily almost 60 757's that are parked in the desert. There are quite a few here in VCV and I believe quite a few ex NW 752's sitting in MZJ too.

FX1816


User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 14806 times:

Quoting loalq (Reply 4):
Out of curiosity, can someone give examples of existing routes where an A340 would be more suitable than a 777? And are these only because of ETOPS limitation?

How does the 340 do on SXM-Trans Atlantic flights?

My understanding is that the KL 747 has/had to make a stop due to the restrictions of that field (length? Obstruction?). In that regard is the (twin) 777 similarly weight (therefore, fuel...) restricted due to the possibility of engine failure at take-off, where as the 340 is not? Or does AF also make a stop from SXM to Paris with their 340 as well? Are they able to fully load it?



I come in peace
User currently offlinejoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3170 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 14693 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 9):
How does the 340 do on SXM-Trans Atlantic flights?

My understanding is that the KL 747 has/had to make a stop due to the restrictions of that field (length? Obstruction?). In that regard is the (twin) 777 similarly weight (therefore, fuel...) restricted due to the possibility of engine failure at take-off, where as the 340 is not? Or does AF also make a stop from SXM to Paris with their 340 as well? Are they able to fully load it?

AF flies the 340 non-stop SXM-CDG, indeed, the 1-engine-out restriction makes that possible: when the A340 loses 1 engine, it still has 75% of it's power, whereas the 777 would be left with 50%.

I don't know how much weight penalty the aircraft takes. SXM's runway is not very long, so I'd be surprised if the A340 can fly it fully-loaded, but apparantly it can lift enough to make the route work.


User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 14210 times:

How would the A340-300 compare with a MD11 as a freighter.

Payload?
Volume?
Range?

The 2 aircraft are similar in size so it would be interesting to see how they would match up.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6924 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 14085 times:

The A340NG's only look bad because the 77W/77L are so good. They will not be retired early because of that; they still are magnificent planes that do the job they were designed to do very well, and in the case of hot and high airports, better than anything else available. They will command lower resale prices than the 777,s but because of that they will likely find homes, and also because of that the airlines that are flying them will likely keep on flying them. They will be replaced when maintenance and fuel costs rise above replacement costs; I doubt that it will be much earlier than any other planes of their age.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6895 posts, RR: 76
Reply 13, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 13999 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 9):
How does the 340 do on SXM-Trans Atlantic flights?

SXM is 2350m in length...
For an A343...
2250m runway on CONF3 allows the 343 to go with 226.6 tons. let's say the 2350m runway gives me 227 tons...
If my DOW is 126 tons... and I carry 300 passengers, my ZFW is going to be 151 Tons...
Based on that, and an estimated landing weight of 160 tons in Paris (includes alternates and holding), the trip would eat up about 50 tons of fuel... with other adjustments etc, it'll give me a 213tons take off weight... So yes, I can go non-stop from SXM to Paris if I want to.

For a 777-200ER...
at 25C and 30C, I'm limited to 259Tons and 256 tons.
For the same trip carrying the same passengers, I need 220 tons of take off weight... so, the 772ER can do it too.

The problem with the 777 doing this route is that I need an ETOPS180... I can do with 120, but I'll just take a few more miles but the take off weight increase would still be within the SXM limits...

The above are just rough quick calcs btw...

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4683 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 14001 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 5):
I am not a great fan of the A345/346 as I find the paper numbers of the 343 more to my taste! *grin*

Maybe you could explain that one?



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 13870 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 13):
SXM is 2350m in length...
For an A343...
2250m runway on CONF3 allows the 343 to go with 226.6 tons. let's say the 2350m runway gives me 227 tons...
If my DOW is 126 tons... and I carry 300 passengers, my ZFW is going to be 151 Tons...
Based on that, and an estimated landing weight of 160 tons in Paris (includes alternates and holding), the trip would eat up about 50 tons of fuel... with other adjustments etc, it'll give me a 213tons take off weight... So yes, I can go non-stop from SXM to Paris if I want to.

For a 777-200ER...
at 25C and 30C, I'm limited to 259Tons and 256 tons.
For the same trip carrying the same passengers, I need 220 tons of take off weight... so, the 772ER can do it too.

The problem with the 777 doing this route is that I need an ETOPS180... I can do with 120, but I'll just take a few more miles but the take off weight increase would still be within the SXM limits...

The above are just rough quick calcs btw...

Mandala499

Have you included obstacles?


User currently offlineb741 From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 716 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 13392 times:

I hope these beautiful birds take early retirement. It will help the airlines with fuel costs and that. Will be sad to see the phasing-out though.


Being Bilingual, I Speak English And Aviation
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6895 posts, RR: 76
Reply 17, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11865 times:

Quoting clydenairways (Reply 15):
Have you included obstacles?

Nope, they were just quick and nasty numbers to took... besides, the 10 departures require a VMC initial climb... I think that would mean "visual separation with terrain" is enough... unless you can provide me with an ODP for TNCM that would be much appreciated...   

Quoting A342 (Reply 14):
Maybe you could explain that one?

Just a personal preference... nothing more to it (except I'm a fuel miser perhaps)...



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2180 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11649 times:

Quoting joost (Reply 10):
I don't know how much weight penalty the aircraft takes. SXM's runway is not very long, so I'd be surprised if the A340 can fly it fully-loaded, but apparantly it can lift enough to make the route work.
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 13):
SXM is 2350m in length...
For an A343...
2250m runway on CONF3 allows the 343 to go with 226.6 tons. let's say the 2350m runway gives me 227 tons...
If my DOW is 126 tons... and I carry 300 passengers, my ZFW is going to be 151 Tons...
Based on that, and an estimated landing weight of 160 tons in Paris (includes alternates and holding), the trip would eat up about 50 tons of fuel... with other adjustments etc, it'll give me a 213tons take off weight... So yes, I can go non-stop from SXM to Paris if I want to.

For a 777-200ER...
at 25C and 30C, I'm limited to 259Tons and 256 tons.
For the same trip carrying the same passengers, I need 220 tons of take off weight... so, the 772ER can do it too.

The problem with the 777 doing this route is that I need an ETOPS180... I can do with 120, but I'll just take a few more miles but the take off weight increase would still be within the SXM limits...

Thanks Mandala. AF using the A340 and not the 772ER may have more to do with the cabin configuration than the aircraft specifications. Also, i'm guessing that not much cargo goes out of SXM, therefore, one does not need the aircraft at its max capacity. Isn't the 77W ETOPS180 by the way? Now, AF not using may simply have to do with capacity.



When I doubt... go running!
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6895 posts, RR: 76
Reply 19, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 11215 times:

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 18):
Also, i'm guessing that not much cargo goes out of SXM, therefore, one does not need the aircraft at its max capacity.

One probably needs to bring stuff in but not out... so to get out, just a full cabin would do I guess... But then, let's not forget the obstacles, that is a tight turn leaving 09/10 (whichever the number is now)... whilst some regs don't require you put in obstacle clearance penalty, some companies may put that for extra safety padding.
Bear also in mind that the above numbers are for dry runway... for wet runway, u're not going to make it non-stop to Paris...

The way I see it, the 343 is cheaper less than 6000NM, and the 777 more capable after 6000NM.... *forgot how I came up with that one* even though the 333s probably best of the 3 at less than 4000NM missions. If SXM is a low yield route, then I want to be cheap getting there... hence the 343 (but don't take my word for it for I am unsure myself!)

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinetom355uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 10803 times:

Well if the A340NG is being mooted for an early retirement schedule - surely the 747 should come before it in the boneyard queue?

The 747 is miles away from the A340-600 on CASM, trip cost and cargo volume, so in real terms we should be waving bye bye to the 744 before the A346....

You know i'm right, even if you find it painful to admit! Luckily, I don't find it hard to say at all 

Tom



on Twitter @tombeckett2285
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3527 posts, RR: 67
Reply 21, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 10719 times:

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 20):
Well if the A340NG is being mooted for an early retirement schedule - surely the 747 should come before it in the boneyard queue?

The 747 is miles away from the A340-600 on CASM, trip cost and cargo volume, so in real terms we should be waving bye bye to the 744 before the A346....

How many A345/6 freighters have been built?

I think there will be 744F's carrying cargo long after the A340NG's have stopped flying.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3212 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 10651 times:

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 20):
Well if the A340NG is being mooted for an early retirement schedule - surely the 747 should come before it in the boneyard queue?

Based on significantly less than all the facts and considerations - yes!!  

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 20):
The 747 is miles away from the A340-600 on CASM, trip cost and cargo volume, so in real terms we should be waving bye bye to the 744 before the A346....

And the A340-600 is miles away from the 777-300ER on CASM, trip cost, and ability to lift its cargo volume.

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 20):
You know i'm right, even if you find it painful to admit! Luckily, I don't find it hard to say at all

Right on what?? The A340-600 is not even close to being considered a successful sub-type. Airbus has managed to sell a whopping 97 of them compared to 410x 777-300ER's, and 694x 747-400's.

How humiliating! Luckily, I don't find it hard to say at all 

[Edited 2010-03-02 14:35:54]

User currently offlinealwaysontherun From Netherlands Antilles, joined Jan 2010, 464 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 10623 times:

People,

perhaps somebody can help me with this one:

Iberia flies their A346 non-stop from GYE to Barajas, no prob.
KLM apparently can´t fly GYE-AMS direct with their MD-11, (or so I have been told), due to the short 2500 meter runway.

Iberia also uses the A346 non-stop from UIO, (2800 meter high), and once again KLM can´t pull this off to AMS with the MD-11. UIO has a short runway as well, but fair is fair; the new airport with a longer runway is due to open next year.

Now I know that Great circle wise AMS is roughly a 1000KM further than MAD from GYE / UIO, but is that the whole reason or has this something to do with the the A346 being more capable as well perhaps??

I imagine Iberia is weight-restricted on these particular legs of the route, no?

Cheers for any info!

### "I am always on the Run"###



"Failure is not an option, it comes standard in any Windows product" - an anonymous MAC owner.
User currently offlinetom355uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 10312 times:

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 22):
to 410x 777-300ER's, and 694x 747-400's.

I can't argue with you about the 77W - even though it is at a disadvantage to the A346 on some routes (hot and high, engine out obstacle clearance, LROPS etc - and I know these are niche markets but it they are still markets and it is the better piece of equipment in these situations).

I didn't mention the 77W in my post however. And really, hand on heart, how many 744's would Boeing have sold if the A346 had been around as long as the 744 has? I'm not going to try and say that the 744 isn't a successful aircraft - but I think that the A340 series gets a pretty bad rap - it is a bloody capable aircraft that does the job it was designed to do - and it IS better than the 744.

The point I was trying to make is that the original poster asked if the A340 should be retired earlier than usual - and I was simply offering my point (backed by accurate figures - I didn't lie did I?) that it COULD (not WOULD - I don't have a crystal ball) under certain circumstances make more financial sense to retire the 'beloved' 744 before any A346's.

I have mentioned before, there is an unusual fascination with the 747 - some people believe it can do no wrong. Like an elderly relative, it seems bad form to point out its shortcomings publicly.



on Twitter @tombeckett2285
25 seabosdca : The A340NG may be the best hot/high widebody ever built, and is pretty runway-friendly under any conditions. The MD-11 likes a lot of runway because
26 Viscount724 : The A340 (and A330) is also preferred by many passengers over the 777 and 747. I much prefer the 2-4-2 Airbus cabin to the 9 (and increasingly 10) ab
27 wn700driver : First one, yes. It is actually a great tool for certain and limited uses. The second two. . . not even close. I would say it is much more in the cata
28 Daysleeper : Im quoting myself here from another thread. Now the responce, I got to this was that the A340 in combination with the 777 killed off the 744 orders.
29 MotorHussy : Except for NZ who with them could have opened routes to South America including AKL to GRU via SCL and/or EZE plus Africa with AKL to JNB via MEL. Th
30 CHRISBA777ER : Trip cost is airline and route dependent as you well know - i think you'll find the A346 is CONSIDERABLY cheaper to run for any carrier on MAD-BOG/ME
31 Post contains images CHRISBA777ER : A346 outclasses the 744 in almost every respect. Not in your mind obviously, but then I cant imagine you take into consideration things like CASM, ra
32 loalq : Agreed. From where I am based now (PVG) I have the option of flying BA or LX back to Europe (777 vs A343), and I always tend to LX because the econom
33 CHRISBA777ER : It was first to market of the big three, and hammered the MD11. The 772ER was third to market and cleaned up (comparatively speaking) because it had
34 CHRISBA777ER : LX in Y on the A343 is considerably better than BA in Y on the 772 in terms of hard product - its quieter as well.
35 Post contains links Transpac787 : Yea and EY is a great source for an objective view on fleet comparison... Then again, why is it that all these airlines seem to be switching from A34
36 Transpac787 : Perhaps in whatever regard you look at it in but the real world the 772ER outsells and outperforms the A343, as the 773ER outsells and outperforms th
37 mogandoCI : A large chunk of TATL is performed by A333s, which compete with the 77E there (few, if any, fly the 77A across the atlantic....does UA or BA do that??
38 CHRISBA777ER : What would Ejazz know lol - he only flies the things! What would I know - I'm only a commercial aviation analyst! As for the rest of your post - you
39 clydenairways : But then you have left out the most limiting factor.. Obstacles within the take off flight path have to be included in the take-off performance calcu
40 RJ111 : It's about 10% away from the 773ER on CASM/trip costs. Payload range and cargo volume is comparable though, unless you're talking about the CG issue.
41 Post contains images astuteman : What on earth has that got to do with his claim that 744's will be retired before A346's? Of course used 744's can find homes as freighters, but for
42 NicoEDDF : While your cheerleading to the extreme is somewhat laughable I can give you a hint at which small and unimportant airline has made a plan about phasi
43 XT6Wagon : The A345's I think will start to find homes in VIP service sooner rather than later. A few will hang around due to low resale value and the current ow
44 trex8 : the 77W burns about 10% less fuel than the A346, fuel is anywhere from 30-40% direct operating cost these days, there may be lower engine mx costs on
45 Transpac787 : EK?? Took 773ER instead of A346 AC?? Took 773ER instead of A346 CX?? Replaced A346 with 773ER The late model A340's are not even close to the perform
46 Post contains images astuteman : Was the miss of NicoEDDF's point deliberate? If I've got his point right, (presumably) LH have a signed and dated plan for retiring their 744's, but
47 Transpac787 : Yet, at least. Plans change very fast. UA had no retirement plans for the 737 in early 2008 and then by the end of 2008 announced a schedule to have
48 RJ111 : What are you on about? The two aircraft have almost identical performance.
49 Post contains images tom355uk : It seems that some people just cannot see the wood for the trees.... Where is the mention of the 77W in NicoEDDF's post? Where was the mention of the
50 MoltenRock : I will cry the day Singapore Air takes the 345 off the SIN-EWR and SIN-LAX routes. It really is the closet thing you can get to having your own privat
51 Post contains images Transpac787 : Other than the higher dead weight, increased fuel burn, shorter range, etc.... you'd be right. I'm unfamiliar with Brit abstractions, had to google t
52 dlphoenix : SQ introduced the 19" wide Y seat on the 77W. The seat width is an internal design feature and has nothing to do with the model. Having said that, as
53 RJ111 : The only performance (key work perform) characteristic there is range, and the 2 planes are within 30nms of each other. The A346 can perform most of
54 corernagh14 : I agree with the analysis re retired comparatively early , probably by 2020. In addition to above comments it is important to assess how many routes
55 tom355uk : The major difference between the MD11 and the A346 is that the MD11 does not have any unique features - it does not offer a USP, if you will. The A34
56 seabosdca : A 777 at 9Y can accommodate wider seats (18.5") than an A330 at 8Y (18"). The 10Y 777 has 17.2" seats, just like the 747, but with narrower aisles.
57 trex8 : theres at least one CX pilot on this forum who has pretty much consistently said the reason CX dropped the leased A346s for the 77W is that Boeing ga
58 Speedbird128 : Out of interest - which operators are 9 abreast still?
59 MoltenRock : I didn't realize they could squeeze in the new larger seats into a 777 and keep it the same 9 across as before. That should help out the folks in coa
60 MoltenRock : As I mentioned SQ has the 19" seats in their A330-300s at 8 across, as well as some of the 777s as was mentioned above at 9 across. How can they fit
61 Post contains images mandala499 : Yes, no doubt it's one huge obstacle, just had a look on the charts, and it was immediately obvious that you're never meant to fly over it N-1 or wit
62 Post contains images Stitch : And no doubt Airbus could have offered them a price so low they could have said "yes" and bought more A340-600s. After all, John Leahy (sic) said he'
63 Post contains images wn700driver : Watch it. I didn't insult you. No need to assume I'm a pilot. Not commercial anyway. . . A WN700Driver happens to be a commonly used tool., A southwe
64 Stitch : I'd debate that. The 777-200 could out-lift an MD-11, but an MD-11 could handily outfly a 777-200 (by over 1500nm at MZFW). The A340-300 could also o
65 wn700driver : This is true. But even though the 343 was billed as an ULH type, it ended up not being used for the routes its customers bought it for, and instead f
66 Stitch : A 77E lifts about two tons more than a 772.
67 SEPilot : But they are adding the 748, so they are not abandoning the 747 completely. It will be interesting to see what happens to the A346's once the 748's a
68 Post contains images CHRISBA777ER : Watch what? You are spouting clear untruths and lies about something, and this being a public forum I've every right to call you out on it. As for ac
69 CHRISBA777ER : I always understood that the A343 and 77E were roughly the same in terms of payload and both exceeded the MD11. MD11 and A343 burned about the same f
70 Stitch : A 77E flies 5800nm at MZFW in "ISA normal" conditions. The A343 with 257t TOW and CF56-C4 engines flies 5000nm and the A343E with 275t TOW and CF56-C
71 Viscount724 : There must be around 40 current 777 operators. Only half a dozen or so are 10-abreast.The 10-abreast 777 operators that come to mind are: Emirates Au
72 Baroque : Wow. So a 346 fllying for ten hours and carrying 100 passngers burns an EXTRA 800x10x100 = 800,000 pounds of fuel. That is close to 400 tonnes, so wi
73 Post contains images CHRISBA777ER : Learn something new every day As an aside - whats the range difference between the PW4090-series, GE90-92/94 and Trent 892/4 powered 77Es?
74 Post contains images CHRISBA777ER : I thought that!
75 CHRISBA777ER : EY are going 10 abreast this spring i heard. JJ - 9 CO - 9 AA - 9 AC - 9 UA - 9 DL - 9 AF - 10 KL - 10 (think I read somewhere their 772s are 9 and t
76 astuteman : And no-one ever said they were. ONCE AGAIN. What has that got to do with the assertion that passenger A340-600's will probably still be flying after
77 Post contains images tom355uk : Finally....astuteman comes good again (clue is in the screen name eh?), at least somebody understands my point! Q. Which condiment is your favourite?
78 MotorHussy : Actually NZ have just launched their new 777 cabin which will include a 10-abreast Y class cabin. Each of the three window seats can be converted int
79 trex8 : not to nitpick but per the Airbus performance charts the 271t A343 has a 5400nm MZFW range at ISA, the 275t has somewhere in the 5600+nm
80 seabosdca : I haven't been inside an SQ A330. If they do have 19" seats at 8Y, then they are using narrower than standard aisles. They will not be able to contin
81 Post contains images Stitch : It's even worse - that figure is supposed to be in kilograms, not pounds! Ah, good ol' New Math. I'm sure the real figure is 800kg per hour, period.
82 Post contains images RJ111 : Just take all the passengers out mate, it doesn't burn any fuel then. ...perfect for deadheading.
83 Post contains links CharlieNoble : Sorry if this is a little off topic, but I found this interesting article (or is it an advertisement in disguise?) from early 2001 describing how the
84 Post contains images astuteman : Although for the sake of diligence, (and modesty) those who know me will also know that the username references something quite different Rgds
85 Viscount724 : I believe KU is 9 abreast.
86 OldAeroGuy : It was also written before three important events happened: 1) 773ER fuel mileage increased by 3.6% relative to the 2001 level after flight testing a
87 alwaysontherun : Exactly! Back on topic, between the MD-11 and the 340 N/G: How much is this difference between the required runway length MD-11 and the A340 N/G. I k
88 Post contains links MoltenRock : So that's 9.6 tons x's 2,000 lbs in a ton = 19,200 lbs. / 6.8 lbs per gallon jet fuel = 2,824 gallons x's($2.03 per US gallon or $ 683 metric ton = $
89 Post contains images CharlieNoble : Thanks Aero! I figured as much. Posted it so somebody smarter than me could tell me what happened since
90 EPA001 : Especially on A-net some Boeing fans get carried away by their enthusiasm if their favorite airliner is better for 95% of the missions. Also the mark
91 Post contains images wn700driver : My goodness, I see someone enjoys taking things personally here. You do understand that the last sentence here makes my claim for me, of course? You'
92 Speedbird741 : Does it really surprise you that LH is planning on phasing out a type from 1989 before they phase out a type they first got in the 2000s ? Yeah there
93 Post contains images astuteman : Nope. I think that was exactly his point You might want to ask those so keen to disparage the A340-600 why it surprises them, perhaps? Rgds
94 AustrianZRH : Why are Y seats on a 747 less sardine style than on board a 340, 777, or a 380? Never been on any of those types except the A346 so it's a genuine qu
95 MoltenRock : I think that's a very US'centric viewpoint that doesn't apply to other parts of the world. SQ is actually increasing the number of aircraft with 19"
96 Post contains images tom355uk : I think you will find that the A340 can also trace its lineage back almost that far, as it uses an extended A300 fuselage, which dates from 1972! Per
97 Post contains images SpeedyGonzales : Isn't it 25 passenger variants and 7 penis enlargements?
98 Post contains images tom355uk : Touche!
99 seabosdca : Eh? A340s, A380s, and 9Y 777s all have wider seats than a 747.
100 seabosdca : The difference is that you can put wider seats on a 777 or A330 without actually reducing the number of seats, if you're willing to live with very na
101 A342 : IMO, you did. First, the A343 is certainly not an ULH aircraft nowadays, but it (nearly) was in 1993. It was the A342 that took up the ULH role back
102 Post contains images mandala499 : Well, Aerolineas Argentinas did/does... A343 to Sydney... One heck of an isolated route. It serves Air Tahiti Nui well... But wait, ULH? How long is
103 wn700driver : I think that's a reasonable hope. After all, they did support the concorde for quite a while, against all economic justification. So I think it shoul
104 Viscount724 : The 747 cabin is, if memory correct, about 7 inches wider than the 777. i''ve always considered 10-abreast 747s comparable to 9-abreast 777s. I don't
105 Post contains images mandala499 : They're doing it to the 320 at the moment as they tend to eat up the cycles quickly in short haul... But I am told, they have the capability already
106 MoltenRock : SQ doesn't apologize for their price, nor react daily to some new cost cutting measures like the US legacies. SQ has a very strong place in the Asian
107 Post contains images EPA001 : I feel exactly the same way about this. And also the future big twins of Airbus and Boeing will not reach that level of beauty, but that is of course
108 A342 : Well, yes and no. It depends on the MTOW. Both were/are available in the standard version (MTOW up to 260 tonnes) and later in the high gross weight
109 Speedbird741 : Really ??? Were did you happen to come across that information ? Would you mind sharing the source ? Yeahhh can't really give much of a response caus
110 Post contains images astuteman : A good place to start is the manufacturers own ACAP documents, which you can find on their respective websites. Failing that, Seatguru will give you
111 Post contains images tom355uk : That is exactly the point I was trying to make. Hell, I think the 747 is awesome, I still remember the first time I saw one, and I thought it was ama
112 RJ111 : Then A342 is only 3t lighter than the A343. Which basically means if you put the same amount of pax in an A343 it would fly almost as far as the A342
113 Post contains images CharlieNoble : Yes! We had to walk from one part of KIAD to another to catch a United regional jet flight. When we were in the windowed overpass I spotted a Lufthan
114 Speedbird741 : From seatguru. EI, AB, AZ, OZ, CA, IB, LH (346 ONLY), MH, PAL, RJ, SA, TP, and US are operating their 332/3, 342/3/6 and even 777s with 17" wide seat
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...
Will There Be More Orders For The Boeing 717? posted Fri Nov 25 2005 04:18:50 by Kaitak744
Will There Be More Orders For The Boeing 717? posted Fri Nov 25 2005 04:18:50 by Kaitak744
Will Everything Be An RJ In The Future? posted Tue Dec 23 2003 03:38:32 by Airtahitinui
Will Everything Be An RJ In The Future? posted Tue Dec 23 2003 03:38:32 by Airtahitinui
B707, DC-8, A340. Which One You Like The Most? posted Tue Jul 17 2001 08:23:05 by Red Panda
B707, DC-8, A340. Which One You Like The Most? posted Tue Jul 17 2001 08:23:05 by Red Panda
Looks Like The A340 May Be Obsolete posted Wed Jun 24 2009 06:07:31 by Jetfuel
Looks Like The A340 May Be Obsolete posted Wed Jun 24 2009 06:07:31 by Jetfuel
Will The A350 Be Introduced Early? posted Tue Jul 10 2007 14:54:34 by B777A340Fan
Will The A350 Be Introduced Early? posted Tue Jul 10 2007 14:54:34 by B777A340Fan
Will The A380 Be Like The Concord posted Sun Jun 13 2004 22:41:25 by Calpilot17
Will The A380 Be Like The Concord posted Sun Jun 13 2004 22:41:25 by Calpilot17
The A340-500...will It Be Profitable For Airlines? posted Sun Mar 7 2004 07:13:38 by CPDC10-30
The A340-500...will It Be Profitable For Airlines? posted Sun Mar 7 2004 07:13:38 by CPDC10-30
MD11: Will It Be Gone Before The DC10 Is Gone? posted Sun Sep 30 2001 08:27:22 by Hoons90
MD11: Will It Be Gone Before The DC10 Is Gone? posted Sun Sep 30 2001 08:27:22 by Hoons90
Will The A340 Be Better If... posted Fri Jun 8 2001 05:30:02 by Mr.BA
Will The A340 Be Better If... posted Fri Jun 8 2001 05:30:02 by Mr.BA
Early 777-200 To Be Broken-Up For The First Time posted Wed Nov 15 2006 10:35:03 by Leelaw
Early 777-200 To Be Broken-Up For The First Time posted Wed Nov 15 2006 10:35:03 by Leelaw