Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Legacy Of The A340  
User currently offlineIrishpower From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 386 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 27035 times:

I realize that the advancements with the A330 and 777 squeezed the A340 and ended its run earlier than expected (375 delivered).
My question(s) are what will be the legacy of the entire A340 family? Success? Failure? A mix? Did it help push both A and B to fine tune the A330 and 777? Do you think Airbus was expecting to sell much more when it was originally created?

All in all, in 40 years will the A340 be seen in a positive or negative light?

116 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 26824 times:

I think one of the legacy items will be the pioneering of ULH routes, particularly for the A345.

From my limited experiences flying on it (with AC) it has to rank as probably the most comfortable jet I've been one (tied with A330), and much quieter than, say, the 777. The 2-2-2-2 seating was extremely passenger friendly.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1280 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 26677 times:

I'd call it an Ok sucuss, even though the amount produced was small, the A330 was part of the same project and family. So it was really not a seperate type in that sense.
It was also operated by a lot of Major operators.

The main problem was that more efficient Twins eventually caused the 340 to not be the most efficient aircraft in most missions, in the later years.

The Aircraft was very popular with lots of orders in the early years of it's life, but then when the improved versions of the 330 and 777 came along, the order book started to dry up.

The original 340 was also supposed to be powered by the SuperFan engine, and the CFM56 was only thrown into the ring after Superfan didn't go ahead. I don't know if this would have made a difference to sales if it had a newer engine.
The later -5/600 had newer engines, but maybe they should have just tried to make it a twin. Maybe influncial operators like Lufthansa insisted in a quad.


User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2101 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 26580 times:

The A340, along with the A330, was a clean sheet design by Airbus to break into the L1011, DC-10 and 747 Classic replacement markets. In a sense, Airbus was clever enough to produce an aircraft in the A330 for short and mid-haul markets and then in the A340 for longhaul markets.

The A340 was up against the MD-11 and the 747-400. Yet for many airlines, it could be said that a 747-400 was too big, so it was a good aircraft for many airlines to acquire. Without the A340, would there have been the will for Boeing to develop the 777? Potentially the A330/A340 could have taken a lot of market share. Don't forget, in the late 1980s both CO and NW had A340s on order (and TW had A330s), while AA and DL were going for the MD-11. This left UA as the last US major to decide on an aircraft, and the A330/A340 might have been a good option if Boeing hadn't started the 777 project.

I think the legacy of the A340 is that it was a good aircraft, but one that was relatively quickly surpassed by technology. Heck, I think sometimes on here people are keen to trash the A340 versus the 777, but it's not that the A340 is a bad or uneconomic aircraft, it's just that the 777 is effectively best in class against the A340. The A346 (once the initial weight issues were sorted) is a good aircraft, offering big improvements over a 747. Yet the 77W manages that even better.



Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 871 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 26565 times:

I guess it depends on how you look at it. If you consider it as a separate type then I’d say it’s sales performance has been mediocre at best, perhaps just managing to pay for it’s self. However, it’s not really an independent type and is more like a 4 engined variant of the A330, or vice versa.

I also don’t think Airbus had any option but to produce it, as at the time it wasn’t possible to get an ETOPS180 certification on EIS. It was Boeings close working relationship with the FAA which allowed them to change the rules meaning the 777 entered service with ETOPS180. As Airbus didn’t have such a close relationship with the FAA, I very much doubt they could have done it.

With that in mind, then I think Airbus made the best of what they had, as a variant or sub-type then it has been successful. And the A330, well it’s on the way to becoming one of, if not the most successful Wide-body of all time.

Finally, not exactly relevant but, should there ever be a commercial aviation beauty pageant then she would win hands down.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 26410 times:

Quoting Irishpower (Thread starter):
Do you think Airbus was expecting to sell much more when it was originally created?

IIRC it was launched on the expectation of 200 x A340 and 400 x A330 sales.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 26400 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 1):
it has to rank as probably the most comfortable jet I've been one

Same here. Regardless of what anyone else may think of the type in commercial terms, I will always regard it with great fondness for its superior level of comfort and quiet cabin. Also, it is a looker. The -600 is just gorgeous.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4405 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 26152 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 5):
IIRC it was launched on the expectation of 200 x A340 and 400 x A330 sales.

So we can summarize that the A340 exceeded the expectations by a good margin, and the A330 is a way even optimist could not have dreamed of.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5768 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 26111 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 5):
IIRC it was launched on the expectation of 200 x A340 and 400 x A330 sales.

I think it was the reverse -- Airbus expected the A340 to be the volume seller and the A330 to be a specialty product for regional ops.

But then the 777 made life difficult for the A340, while Airbus was able to squeeze far more capability out of the A330 than it originally expected.

The A340 was a success, but not an overwhelming one. But the A330 was a grand slam home run.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 25914 times:

A-340-200 = failure
A-340-8000 = failure
A-340-300 = success
A-340-500 = failure
A-340-600 = failure
---------------------------
TOTAL = mixed

Five different models of the A-340 were eventually produced, including the one and only A-340-8000. The A-340 did fly for many airlines, and several of those operated the B-747-400 and A-340-300 but on different missions.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 25813 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 8):
I think it was the reverse -- Airbus expected the A340 to be the volume seller and the A330 to be a specialty product for regional ops.

No, the ratio was 1/3 A340 and 2/3 A330. They did expect twin engines to take over. It just happened faster than they expected.

The A340 came first because at that time it wasn't realistic with twins for that flight profile. Airbus had pushed twin engine operations with the A300/A310 but can you imagine how hard it would have been for them to get FAA approval for extending it to the A340 flight profile. Not to mention to get engine manufacturers to produce it.


User currently offlineAAExecplat From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 636 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 25751 times:

While the A340 as a standalone aircraft may not have been a smashing sales success, I think it is fair to say that the A340/A330 program as a whole has been a huge success that has (and continues to) provided the European countries who ponied up launch capital with a nice stream of royalties.

From a customer perspective, I have flown all variants (A342, A343, A345, A346) multiple times, and there can be no doubt that in terms of passenger comfort, the A340 is a fantastic aircraft because the cabin is wonderfully quiet. I have always preferred the A340 (or A330) over the Boeing 777 for that very reason. I just flew Singapore's 77Ws and A333s as well as LH A333, and the experience reaffirmed my general experience. That said, SQ's hard and soft product in Y are better than any other Y class I've ever flown, so that more than made up for the noisier cabin.


User currently offlineFocker From Netherlands, joined Jan 2011, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 25636 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
including the one and only A-340-8000

I must have missed out on that one... What kind of plane was that supposed to be?


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5768 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 25246 times:

Quoting Focker (Reply 13):
I must have missed out on that one... What kind of plane was that supposed to be?

It was an "A340-200X." Just the -200 with the higher MTOW and uprated engines of the -300X. It was so named because it was planned to have 8000 nm nominal range.


User currently offlineCyanide72 From Canada, joined Feb 2011, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 25246 times:

Quoting Focker (Reply 13):



I know it's not really reliable, but Wikipedia seems to have an answer to this one. I too wasn't aware of an A340-8000 but apparently one was built for the Sultan of Brunei who asked for an 8000nm range, hence the 8000 nomenclature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A340#A340-200

Interesting...


User currently offlineGingersnap From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 898 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 25170 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
A-340-8000 = failure

Wasn't that based on a request by the Sultan of Brunei? -200 body with 8000nm range with a similar MTOW to the -300 variant.
I think you only included the -8000 in that list in an attempt to further bash an Airbus product IMO.



Flown on: A306 A319/20/21 A332 B732/3/4/5/7/8 B742/4 B752 B762/3 B772/W C152 E195 F70/100 MD-82 Q400
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 871 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 24519 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
A-340-200 = failure
A-340-8000 = failure
A-340-300 = success
A-340-500 = failure
A-340-600 = failure
---------------------------
TOTAL = mixed

I don't see the point in this, especially since your including one off VIP versions. The A330A340 project, and they are one project with the same tooling, same production etc, is massively successful. It has already made billions in profit for Airbus and it's showing no signs of slowing down, so there is still much more to come.

Also, if we applied the same criteria you have used on the A340 variants to the 747 then versions like the 100SR, 200C, 300, 300M and 300SR would all be classed as "Failures" too. And that isn't a detailed list, there will be more especially if we got into VIP frames as you have.


User currently offlinebavair From Germany, joined Jul 2011, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 24470 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):


A-340-600 = failure

I agree on the other ones, but the A346=Failure? I'm not too sure about this one. It's the most economical aircraft out of the bunch, while only having about half the orders of the A343, it will continue to remain in the airline's fleets for a much longer time and overall gave Airbus the stepping stone for larger projects (aka A380).


User currently offlineincitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4051 posts, RR: 13
Reply 18, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 24408 times:

The A340 was the 4-engined MD-11.


Stop pop up ads
User currently offlineBrianDromey From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 3926 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 24204 times:

Quoting Irishpower (Thread starter):
the A340 and ended its run earlier than expected (375 delivered).

Comercially the programme is undoubtedly a success, sure it' not as successful as the primary competitor, the 777 but it is still not a bad showing.
For all its failings the A345 is still used on the longest flights in the world, SIN-EWR and SIN-LAX. These are far and away longer than any other currently operated commercial flight. Of course that does not mean a lot, but the A345 is still has at least one claim to fame!



Next flights: MAN-ORK-LHR(EI)-MAN(BD); MAN-LHR(BD)-ORK (EI); DUB-ZRH-LAX (LX) LAX-YYZ (AC) YYZ-YHZ-LHR(AC)-DUB(BD)
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5768 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 24036 times:

Quoting incitatus (Reply 20):
The A340 was the 4-engined MD-11.

Hardly. The A340 sold nearly twice the copies of the MD-11. The A340 arrived meeting spec, and rapidly improved; the MD-11 missed spec by a monstrous margin at EIS, and only recovered to the original spec, never improving past it. Unlike the MD-11, operators didn't prematurely retire the A340 en masse.

[Edited 2012-02-06 08:10:58]

User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4864 posts, RR: 40
Reply 21, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 23537 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 3):
The A340, along with the A330, was a clean sheet design by Airbus to break into the L1011, DC-10 and 747 Classic replacement markets. In a sense, Airbus was clever enough to produce an aircraft in the A330 for short and mid-haul markets and then in the A340 for long-haul markets.

The A340 was up against the MD-11 and the 747-400.


Good summary.

The A340 (all models) were imho a huge success since they allowed Airbus to enter new markets where they had never been present before. And these markets were dominated by Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas. But Airbus found some solid ground where they had never walked before, and many customers were very happy with the planes they received from Airbus in multiple ways.

It clearly beat the MD-11 sales wise, and accelerated Boeing to develop a plane in more or less the same size category, which became the now phenomenal B777. It was the foundation for Airbus to go on developing larger airplanes (beginning with the A340-500/600) and culminating in the A380.

Sales wise the competition (in house with the A330 and external by the B777) did not do the A340 all the justice she deserved. But the ETOPS-rules changing was probably the most deciding factor into that and of course that the super fan engines were not going to be delivered as originally proposed. So the proposal what Airbus had in mind did not materialize, and for a "plan B" the aircraft has performed very, very well.  .

Economically the A330-A340 program was and still is an enormous success, though the A345/A346 might not have earned back all the development costs. But then again, the other A340's did, and even more, the A330 did that 10 x over. All in all a huge success for Airbus bringing them to where they are now, for the 6th or 7th consecutive year the overall number 1 aircraft manufacturer in civilian aviation.  .

On a personal note: with the A345 Airbus created the most beautiful looking aircraft in civilian aviation for a long time to come. To me the B787 and also the A350 will not match that level of beauty.  .

[Edited 2012-02-06 08:35:15]

User currently offlinetsnamm From United States of America, joined May 2005, 631 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 23354 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 24):
On a personal note: with the A345 Airbus created the most beautiful looking aircraft in civilian aviation for a long time to come.

I feel the A346 takes the cake for the most beautiful/aesthetically pleasing of recent types. The stretch just adds something to it for me, it has a classic 707 look to it with the much larger frame...CX's looked very nice and so does VS's...always a pleasure to see it...


User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 23141 times:

Quoting tsnamm (Reply 25):
I feel the A346 takes the cake for the most beautiful/aesthetically pleasing of recent types.

I'll disagree. The A346 looks a bit too long. The shorter versions looked better proportioned, although then they start to look like the IL-96, so they look like twins to me.

707, you are right on the money there. Classy (DC-8, too, but not too stretched), design still in use today, versatile, good looking plane. As far as best looking recent types, for widebodies the 777LR is drop dead pretty, conceptually the CSeries looks to be a beautiful looking plane. and the 757 is one of the best designs out there, bar none.

Can't forget the L1011, 737-700 or A319. Good looking aircraft.


User currently offlineBobMUC From Germany, joined Nov 2011, 454 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 22954 times:

From a commercial aspect, it's definitely a mixed picture. But Airbus has used the 340 as the base for the 330 and the 330/340 family will be a growing success... as EAP001 and FlyCaledonian have already wrote.

Personally, the 346 is the best looking bird out there... besides the DC3...  


25 Alias1024 : I think it's fair to say that the A340 legacy is mixed. As a standalone aircraft it didn't sell all that well. Throw in the development costs of build
26 HBGDS : Long story short: The A340's legacy is the A330. And with hindsight, Airbus really, really wishes it had guessed that.
27 richierich : Agreed. I think the legacy can be summed up as "four engines is not for the long-haul". Twin operations are here to stay and that is where the future
28 U2380 : The A340 might not have been as successful as the 777 but I do believe the A330/40 family was a massive step (along with the A320) in allowing Airbus
29 Independence76 : This is slightly off-topic, but does anyone remember the first impressions of the industry when the A330/A340 program was launched in 1986? At the tim
30 Alias1024 : I think that's only part of the story. The A340 undoubtedly gave Airbus the potential sales they needed to launch the A330/A340 project. I have to wo
31 notaxonrotax : We can not just omit the A330 program in this story………unless of course the intention is to bad-mouth Airbus´s commercial performance. Oh yeah,
32 SuperCaravelle : I doubt it. Of course, Airbus, like any other company, would like to know everything years in advance. But, as someone argued correctly, the A340 was
33 Irishpower : I totally agree that the success of the A340 was the A330 (in the long run). Why were the improvements to the A330 so much more effective than the imp
34 seabosdca : The biggest reason is empty weight, although 2 engines vs. 4 also played a part. The A330 and A342/3 are relatively lightweight for what they can do.
35 tonymctigue : My thoughts on this one are yes, the A340 series were fantastic aircraft but they suffered from a similar fate as the MD-11 (with the exception that t
36 gigneil : No there was the A340-300X which was the main seller of the family. And to be fair, most of the improvements to the A330 came from improvements to the
37 odwyerpw : It was the only Widebody, Single Deck, Quad Engined plane every built. 1 Deck, 2 Isles, 4 Engines. The only of it's kind ever produced. no?
38 Post contains links GBLKD : Sadly no, there is also the IL-96 so the A340 isn't unique in that respect http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Aer...an_Airlines_Ilyushin_IL-96-300.php
39 Post contains images legoguy : Lets not forget the IL-86 and IL-96
40 dennys : Even if the A340-200 " is a failure" , she is the best quad looking airplane . Thanks to all airlines lauching her between 1987 and 1998 !
41 BEG2IAH : A346 is a bit too long, but looks amazing and I felt I was on an ERJ-145 because it was very agile and powerful when making turns. It terms of visual
42 Post contains images Caryjack : I'd vote for this. I've been on IB A-346s a few times (Gaudi was 1) and can say it was the smoothest, quietest ride I've ever had. I also think it's
43 jfk777 : Saying the A340 was a failure is unfair, it like saying the 747SP was a failure. The A330/340 program allowed Airbus to go into the long haul which it
44 BOACCunard : The A340 is, along with the A320, one of two airplanes that made Airbus a serious competitor to Boeing. Airbus's future successes would have been impo
45 PM : Actually, I rather doubt this. I fear that the A340-600 may be rather short-lived in most fleets. We already know that VS are ditching a few. I think
46 Post contains images cedarjet : The legacy of the A340 is to empty my bank account as I contemplate flying the most beautiful airliner ever built by Airbus. (I was going to say, ...i
47 Stitch : While only one A340-8000 was built, later models of the A340-200 - the A340-213X - had most of the PiPs and performance of the A340-8000 to give them
48 FlyCaledonian : That assumes that without the A330/A340, the 777 would have even come to the market. Or at least as soon as it did. Exactly, with the 777 Boeing was
49 RayChuang : The legacy of the A340 was simple: it was the first Airbus model that could fly really long routes, and as such pioneered flying smaller planes on man
50 sfjeff : The 4 seats in the middle on A340s and A330s are normally configured as 2 sets of 2 side by side, so that the inner seats have their own arm rests on
51 HBGDS : Yes, they were, but these were paper projects. Priority was to the A200, the "ancestor" of the A320. After that they had to convince their partners a
52 Post contains images col : The legacy is that Airbus gave us Pax on long haul a nice quiet smooth ride, for which I thank them (SQ also for keeping the 345, best rides ever). Sa
53 neutronstar73 : UNfortunately for Airbus, for all of the A330/340's successes (and failures) the benchmark of the class has been and will be the 777. The 777 (and the
54 SSTeve : In the MD-11s defense, those turned out to be nice freighters, while the A340s so far haven't seen that sort of second life.
55 poLOT : Of course, in defense of the A340, part of that reason is because the MD-11 were so heavily rejected by passenger airlines.
56 PM : A bit of a circular argument, this. Who says that the 767 and 777 and "industry standards"? For what? Wouldn't it be just as easy (and meaningless) t
57 flightsimer : Reading through got me wondering... I wonder how an A330 with the A340-500/600 Trent 500's would have performed and looked.
58 idlewildchild : From a purely subjective 'ride' perspective, I like to ride in the front of A340-600 and not somuch for the A340-300. And probably prefer 777 over bot
59 Post contains links and images CXB77L : I suppose you have evidence to support that claim? There is a documentary made about the making of the 777, titled 21st Century Jet, in which it was
60 seabosdca : No A340-200X were built (except the one "A340-8000"). All the other A340-200 frames in existence have the original engines and weights. I'm sure Airb
61 cmf : It wasn't the A330-200 that ended A340-200 orders. It was the performance and specifically the economy of the A340-300. It was almost exactly as with
62 connies4ever : All the flights I took on AC A340s I had either a window or outer aisle seat. But I seem to recall, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, that there w
63 seabosdca : A340 EIS was March 1993. A332 launch was November 1995. The A340-213X was not offered to customers until 1997.
64 notaxonrotax : They are different products, of course. But to claim A340 was a commercial failure without considering that the design costs lead to both families is
65 AustrianZRH : I'd call the 777 the legacy of the A340. The A330/A340 program was officially launched in 1985, i.e., three years before Boeing launched the 777 - an
66 Post contains images EPA001 : That only happened in 2003 after the B77W enjoyed it's EIS. Until that time the A340-300 and B772ER were almost on par in every aspect. So 10 years l
67 Daysleeper : I didn’t say the FAA were lenient on Boeing, I said that Boeing’s close working relationship with the FAA helped them to get the rules changed. I
68 neutronstar73 : Pop quiz: Which of these aircraft in the widebody market is currently the target for new aircraft performance? A300 A330 A340 777 767 Perhaps you guy
69 UALWN : I'd say that Airbus managed to beat the 767 long time ago. I still remember the debates between A and B fans about which of the 332 and 764 (similar
70 KC135TopBoom : For an airplane still in commerical airliner production, and has already sold over 1,000 units, what would you call it? The airplanes it was designed
71 Daysleeper : You seem to have accidentally missed the end of that quote, as what he actually said was; ““I’ve got to give them credit on the 777, if you nee
72 mogandoCI : The conventional wisdom of the most optimal combo these days is 330+77W, so in that sense both programs are equally successful, while the 332 has been
73 airbazar : I can't understand why people still insist that it was a failure. The A340/330 program (yes it's one and the same), was massively succesful and conti
74 Daysleeper : In a word, id call it Obsolete. Airbus has sold more passenger A330's in the last 2 years than Boeing have sold 767's in the last 10. Hardly what you
75 CXB77L : I never claimed that the A340 is a commercial failure. I'm merely pointing out that even Airbus lists them as separate families (not just a variant o
76 mogandoCI : Granted, some of them were discounted-compensation for A350 delays.
77 Daysleeper : Evidence of what? As I have repeatedly said I don’t think there was any wrong doing just at that time Boeing were in a much better position to be a
78 Daysleeper : Just as 767's for ANA and JAL were compensation for the 787 delays. The point still stands though, the A330 has out-sold the 767 by a huge margin.
79 Post contains images U2380 : It depends on the route. Yes, the 777-300ER is in a league of it's own at the moment. But, it's the only member of the 777 that is. There's a reason
80 Post contains images EPA001 : A very wise advice. In this case the colors black, yellow and green could be added to the list. . Then the whole picture of flags becomes clear. .[Ed
81 notaxonrotax : Biased quoting: Oops!! Touché. Yippo…. You know it´s being outperformed by the newer (so less sold) A330, no? Presently selling like hot cakes??
82 airbazar : The limiting factor wasn't just ETOPS. It was engine performance. I know they are both somewhat related. When the A340 was being designed there wasn'
83 racko : The A330/A340 program was essential in turning an also-ran (that's what Airbus was in the 80s) into the No.1. In 1990 Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas com
84 Post contains links Stitch : The predecessor to EASA did the same. So did many other national authorities. Guess they were all in Boeing's pocket, as well, eh? Or maybe it was th
85 Post contains images PM : Because then it would be the most successful widebody family in history and that would drive some people here over the edge! And what's a "fuselarge"
86 odwyerpw : Ahhh...I can't believe I overlooked the Ilyushins. Well, it's correct to say the A340 did it better than the Ilyushins.
87 mogandoCI : I'd venture that even the A340-600 alone did better than the illusions they had
88 ltbewr : So what happens now to the A340's? As 4 engined aircraft, their fuel burn will be too much for most pax use but for range as to certain sub-models. Co
89 CXB77L : Evidence to support your claim that ... and by implication, why any other manufacturer All you have provided so far is the assertion that because Boe
90 Post contains links Daysleeper : Again, I have not said that there was any wrong doing in regards to this just simply that at the time of the A340’s development Airbus was still re
91 CXB77L : Did you read Stitch's post immediately after that one? The FAA weren't the only ones doing that.
92 Daysleeper : Yes, but I fail to see why its relevant. I didn’t mention anything regarding type certificates I stated that Boeing and the FAA have a close relati
93 par13del : I'm not sure what Boeing's relationship with the FAA have to do with the success or failure of the A340, as far as I am aware, all Airbus a/c are manu
94 Daysleeper : My comments were to address the reasoning behind Airbus going with 4 engines on the A340, which I believe to be in part because they did not have the
95 Post contains images Stitch : I believe the A340-200s and A340-500s will become VIP birds. The A340-300s and A340-600s will likely be scrapped for parts to keep the A340-200s and
96 racko : Until EASA was founded, the European Aviation authorities were hopelessly stuck with infighting, everybody pushing to do it "their way". JAA allowed f
97 Daysleeper : Which isn’t a point I raised - As I am unfamiliar with the intra-regulatory policies which would dictate the standards to be accepted on the merit
98 Post contains images Stitch : Thank you for clarifying your position on the matter.
99 Daysleeper : Your welcome. Sometimes posting on here feels like I'm the defendant in a murder trail LOL
100 GCPET : One of my favourite aircraft in 600 form! Really sleek! GCPET
101 Post contains images par13del : What did you expect, to have a discussion on an Airbus bird without Boeing raising a hissy fit? Hopefully no Boeing supporter will copy this quote fo
102 dfambro : I understand your point but I'm skeptical. Let's not confuse the corporate organization with their historical aircraft development skills. It's not l
103 SSTeve : I did try to beg the question of freighter conversion earlier when I commented that at least the MD-11s will fly on for quite awhile in that form. Is
104 trystero : Personally, I won't go that far. The 744 and the MD-11 still beats the A345. But is a very, very close third position..
105 Stitch : I see no reason why the A340-300 could not work as a freighter. Airbus and Bedek Aviation have both floated proposals for passenger to freighter conv
106 Post contains images aircellist : Could a simple wedge at the parking spot do the trick? If so, I want 15%
107 trystero : I think its a little early to raise the freighter question on the A340's. Not only is still a economicly valid aircraft, also the freighter logic of n
108 darksnowynight : Then what exactly is the point of mentioning that? I think that whatever you meant, it does boil down to a red herring here. Boeing may have a great
109 jfk777 : Selling 744 until 2020 ? When the 744 was born the 747 program was 20 years old, by 2020 it will be 50 years old. NO airplane has been continously fo
110 OldAeroGuy : Also the B-52 and the KC-135.
111 darksnowynight : Yes, and maybe longer still. First of all, there is a first time for everything. The 737 program will almost certainly exceed that by quite a margin
112 jfk777 : These 2 were Not made by Boeing for 50 years, the last B-52 was built in 1962, they have flown for 50 years is what you mean.
113 Post contains images TK1244 : Sorry to bug in, but you didn't said anything about the continuously production. This caused OldAeroGuy to mention these planes in his reply
114 su184 : Well, with all due respect there are regulatory bodies that allow mixed A330/A340 operations which is the magic behind the Airbus FBW concept, also y
115 par13del : To be clear for this non-pilot, are you saying that there are authorities who have given them the same type rating, or: the fact that Airbus has a co
116 su184 : par13del : well a company cannot break regulatory rules, there are authorities that allow the A330/A340 to have common type-rating, EgyptAir does this
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...
The New A340 Private Jet MSN 955 – Some Updates posted Mon Nov 3 2008 03:32:01 by N14AZ
Picture Of The A340-642 For The Gvmt. Of Jordan posted Sun Aug 31 2008 00:44:22 by N14AZ
Mexicana And The A330/A340 Family posted Thu Jun 5 2008 10:08:00 by AM744
Who Will Get The Last A340 And When? posted Wed May 28 2008 06:41:45 by Panais
Can Someone Explain The A330/A340 E's And X's posted Mon Jan 14 2008 08:25:08 by AviationAddict
The Sole A340-8000 Has Been Sold To........ posted Wed Mar 7 2007 18:16:33 by FCKC
Any News On The VS A340 HKG Tailstrike? posted Sat Dec 2 2006 17:40:15 by Baflyer
What Ever Happened To The Airbus A340-400? posted Thu Mar 30 2006 16:16:44 by Gilesdavies
Unadvertised Benefits Of The Legacy Carriers posted Sat Dec 24 2005 02:21:13 by Cory6188
When Will The QR A340-600's Be Ready? posted Sat Nov 12 2005 15:35:10 by B742