Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Do I Read Many Neg Comments Re: A340?  
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2896 posts, RR: 9
Posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 17967 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

PLEASE NO A vs B discussion!

I like the A340 just fine. I'm never disappointed to see I am flying one. But after reading the thread about the considered Swiss fleet changes, and other threads, I realized that the A340 (albeit loved by some) I do read more negative comments regarding it's issues and not being that successful a frame. There have been 375 frames made according to Wiki and seemingly went out of production quite quickly.

On the Swiss thread there were many comments about how easy a used A340's is to get, why would LX take an ac with little resale value etc.

So has the aviation world deemed an A340 something of a failure, a niche airplane?

It does seem with SQ's EWR to SIN non-stop filled a spot nothing else could have filled?

Also, if it's life is short as a pax ac, would they make a good cargo plane?

Thanks for you thoughts.


The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
75 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2979 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 17975 times:

It depends on which A340 you are referring to.

The A342 and A345 were leaders in ULH type missions, and have now been overtaken by the new breed of twins hitting the market. They had their time, and were quite useful and something newer and better came along.

The A343 has been a great plane for a number of airlines. Its still quite efficient overall, even though some of its missions can be better handled to the modern twins. It still has a role in the fleet on a number of airlines but as time goes on its only natural that it is replaced by the next gen.

I loved the A340 flying experience. Its 8 abreast seating config and its quieter ride made it a great plane to fly.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31000 posts, RR: 86
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 17865 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
So has the aviation world deemed an A340 something of a failure, a niche airplane?

Calling it a "failure" would be unduly harsh, IMO, however the latest A330-300 can do many of the missions it can more efficiently, as can the 777-200ER. As such, A340 sales eventually dried up and Airbus recently removed the family from sale. Compared to other Airbus families and models, the A340 was a poor seller and that impacts the resale values of frames.



Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
It does seem with SQ's EWR to SIN non-stop filled a spot nothing else could have filled?

At the time SQ purchased it, this is true.


Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
Also, if it's life is short as a pax ac, would they make a good cargo plane?

The A340-300 might find life as a freighter thanks to low purchase price of airframes for feed stock, but the A340-500 and A340-600 are quite heavy so their operating economics as a freighter would suffer some.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1577 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 17841 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Calling it a "failure" would be unduly harsh, IMO, however the latest A330-300 can do many of the missions it can more efficiently, as can the 777-200ER. As such, A340 sales eventually dried up and Airbus recently removed the family from sale. Compared to other Airbus families and models, the A340 was a poor seller and that impacts the resale values of frames.


Well put. I think it's a case of a good overall airliner that simply got overtaken by advancements in twins, and further cannibalized by those advancements applied to it's twin sister A330.


User currently offlinecchan From New Zealand, joined May 2003, 1761 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 17750 times:

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
I like the A340 just fine. I'm never disappointed to see I am flying one. But after reading the thread about the considered Swiss fleet changes, and other threads, I realized that the A340 (albeit loved by some) I do read more negative comments regarding it's issues and not being that successful a frame. There have been 375 frames made according to Wiki and seemingly went out of production quite quickly.

Personally I like twins more than quads, but I would acknowledge that it is only my subjective personal opinion, there is nothing "wrong" at all for the 340. I don't like sluggish climb for the 343, or the look of tiny hairdryers on the wings, and I would prefer to go on other types if there is a choice. Objectively, the 340 is not a failure in design, the main reason for slow sales is that there are competing similar aircrafts out there which are more economical to operate. Newer engines also offer more power so that the same load can be carried by fewer but larger engines, and this seems to be more economical. It is just bad luck for the 340.


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1600 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 17528 times:

I've never had the privilege of flying on one, but from what I read, the 340 receives accolades for its comfortable and quiet cabin and its style (especially the 343). The fuel efficiency vs twin aircraft is its only problem from what I've read. I think we on A.net would love to see them flying for many years to come!

User currently offlinesccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5520 posts, RR: 28
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 17502 times:

You could call it a failure, but for the fact that the 340 and 330 have so much commonality. The 340 is no longer competitive, but it has served well, and (other than its "I think I can, I think I can" climb rate, which I suspect really only bothers airliner geeks, pilots and controllers) it is a good and safe bird.

I still think it is butt-ugly, and how it manages that while bing a sibling to the gracful and elegant 330 is just beyond me.



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2116 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 17453 times:

The only negative comments seem to be economics. For long haul it is very good for passengers, smooth and quiet. The pax pays for the economics of twins as the twins are much noisier in the cabin, and some of the 77W's with 10 across are not pleasant, Etihad, KLM and Emirates suck, but beggars cannot be choosers as we say.

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19709 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 17302 times:

There is nothing "bad" about the A340. It simply is more expensive to operate than the competing 777. For that reason, it sold poorly.

User currently offlineHBGDS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 17266 times:

There was an earlier thread about the A340 vs. 330. Cannot find it right now, but suffice to say: the A340 and A330 were conceived of as being the same beast in different clothing (originallt TA-9 and TA 11 projects from the 1980s). 'Unfortunate that the A340 ended, but in Airbus's outlook it has now evolved into the A330, so it is NOT a loss. Just an early end to a specific version.

P.S. Basically, you are reading negatve comments because this is Airliners.net and because we are so obsessed (as a big group) with innovation rather than historical background and analysis, Hard to accept, mais c'est la vie. (and not unique to Airliners.net)

[Edited 2012-04-20 22:22:32]

User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6920 posts, RR: 63
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 17235 times:

The unmissed but depressingly influential ConcordeBoy on this forum never tired of ridiculing the A340, calling it a 'POS' (which I understand to be a derogatory term on the western side of the Atlantic Ocean). It may also have been he who described the CFM-56, rather widely considered to be quite a successful engine, as a "hairdryer".

People who can seemingly judge the speed and ascent rate of an aeroplane by watching the clouds go by (a skill I confess I have not acquired) and to whom it is apparently important to reach cruising altitude as quickly as possible sneer at the A340's ability to climb.

Me, I'm an airliner enthusiast. I rather like seeing A340s. I also quite enjoy flying on them. I've had the good fortune to fly on A340s belonging to Sabena, Swiss, Turkish, China Airlines, Cathay, Lufthansa and Virgin Atlantic in both Economy and Business and I've never failed to enjoy a trip. Indeed, I arrived in Japan six years ago on an A340 (LH) and when I leave this July it will be on another (LX).

Was the A340 a commercial success or a failure? The A340-300 did better than many (the MD-11 comes to mind) but poorer than others (the 777-200ER). The A345/A346 certainly didn't sell in the numbers hoped for but c'est la vie. Did Airbus lose money on any of the A340 variants? I rather doubt it.

Why some rush to heap insults on the A340, I've never understood. Says more about them than the plane, I suspect.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5579 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 17181 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 3):
I think it's a case of a good overall airliner that simply got overtaken by advancements in twins

It is an analogous situation to the MD-11. Technology had advanced to the point that 2 engines would suffice, so there was no need to pay to power 3 or 4.

That said the A340 is still a great plane from a passengers perspective. Any negative comments generally start and end with those very same 'bean counters' which everyone seems to love to bash around here.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineB2468 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 17036 times:

The following comments are purely personal opinion and based on pure aesthetics and comfort, not technical performance...

I have always been disappointed that the A340 did not sell better.

I remember being in HKG back in 2004 and watching the 343 take off, and I thought it was by far the most beautiful and elegant airliner in the sky. The "hairdryer" engines and the slow climb performance gave the 343 this very delicate and elegant look on take off. I love that!

As a passenger, my favorite aircraft is by far the 346...although not as aesthetically pleasing as the 343, it is just so much more comfortable. Whenever I fly home PVG-NYC, I have a choice between UA's 77E and MU's 346. Although UA offers a much better soft product, I always try to choose MU for the more comfortable ride of the 346 (my primary IFE is the window on take off and landing, and Ambien during cruise ^_^).

Don't get me wrong, the 777 and A330 are fantastic aircraft, and have been home runs for Airbus and Boeing, but my love for the A340 will never die!



Dash-8/ERJ/306/310/319/320/332/333/343/346/388/72S/731/732/733/734/73G/738/741/744/74E/752/762/763/77E/77W/DC9/D1C/M82
User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1577 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 16965 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 11):
It is an analogous situation to the MD-11. Technology had advanced to the point that 2 engines would suffice, so there was no need to pay to power 3 or 4.

That said the A340 is still a great plane from a passengers perspective. Any negative comments generally start and end with those very same 'bean counters' which everyone seems to love to bash around here.

I agree with that principal. However, at the risk of splitting hairs, I think the A340 didn't suffer the same level of technical deficiencies in relation to it's advertised performance, but simply got superseded by advancements in technology. I could be wrong, but my understanding of the MD-11 is that it was a plane that underperformed from the beginning, and even after PIPs were implemented could not compete in the market.


User currently onlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 16875 times:

Failure is the wrong word IMO. The development costs for the A340 would have been significantly less than the 777 (given that Airbus effectively got two types for the price of one by developing the A340/A330 alongside each other), so it might well be of equal financial success.

While I don't argue that the A340 is an A330, you have to look at the program as a whole when determining its success IMO. Without the A340, the A330 would likely not have the same penetration is does today (ie airlines would have gone for 777's for long range flights instead of the A343, and wouldn't have purchased A330's due to commonality etc). Airlines like LX would be 777 airlines, and wouldn't be operating large numbers of A333's. LH, IB, AY etc are also examples of this.

So really, while the A340 itself might have proven to be a bit lackluster, it has enabled Airbus to develop a really strong customer base in this segment. The success of the A330 would never have been as great as it is today without the help of the A340 in the 1990's.


User currently offlinebtblue From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 578 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 16826 times:

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
So has the aviation world deemed an A340 something of a failure, a niche airplane?

It made it to market. I got orders. It made airlines money AND it shaped airbus making it what it is today.

It was NOT a failure. FACT.



146/2/3 737/2/3/4/5/7/8/9 A320 1/2/18/19/21 DC9/40/50 DC10/30 A300/6 A330/2/3 A340/3/6 A380 757/2/3 747/4 767/3/4 787 77
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21531 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 16751 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 5):

I was recently on LH's A346 in J and found no appreciable difference in comfort or noise compared to the 777 in front. It was my first trip on the A346 and expected an extra quiet ride from all I read. I still found it loud.

Only other A340 trip was 15 years back on Sabena. All I remember was being excited about flying on it but being cramped by their horrible seat pitch, although that was luxurious compared to the Sobelair 767 we connected to.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 756 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 16569 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 3):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Calling it a "failure" would be unduly harsh, IMO, however the latest A330-300 can do many of the missions it can more efficiently, as can the 777-200ER. As such, A340 sales eventually dried up and Airbus recently removed the family from sale. Compared to other Airbus families and models, the A340 was a poor seller and that impacts the resale values of frames.


Well put. I think it's a case of a good overall airliner that simply got overtaken by advancements in twins, and further cannibalized by those advancements applied to it's twin sister A330.
Quoting LHCVG (Reply 13):
I think the A340 didn't suffer the same level of technical deficiencies in relation to it's advertised performance, but simply got superseded by advancements in technology.

Its worth remembering that the 340 was also superseded by the rising cost of jet fuel - the fuel delta between a twin and a quad is very different today at $100+ per barrel as opposed to $35 per barrel when the 340 was first conceived. The 340 was the first genuine long haul platform built by Airbus at a time when ETOPS was in its infancy and a quad would have been a lower risk option. Things only really changed with the advent of the 772ER.

Nitpic - the 342/3 are models that belong to the 330/340 family which was a single program. The 345/6 were part of the later 340NG program which could be considered a separate family.


Regards,
StickShaker

[Edited 2012-04-21 02:19:42]

User currently offlineairproxx From France, joined Jun 2008, 636 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 15490 times:

I think at launch, the A342, and then the A343 WERE niche airplanes, competing directly with the MD11. But the fact is that it rapidly went into disgrace with the arrival of long range heavy ETOPS planes, 777 leading the flock...
the fact is that A343 (dunno about the bigger 340s) has a too low resulting payload.
Payload is the main issue of this aircraft family.
I'm curious to see how it will behave as a cargo aircraft...!
An AF official told me several years ago that in AF fleet, the A340 was the less sustainable aircraft (one could believe it's the 744)...



If you can meet with triumph and disaster, and treat those two impostors just the same
User currently offlinegingersnap From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 893 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 14974 times:

I don't get it either. There are few aircraft that were designed to use the curvature of the earth to climb to altitude  


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 offlineVHHYI From Australia, joined Oct 2007, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 13819 times:

Wasn't the A340 supposed to be powered by the IAE SuperFan - one of the earlier GTF attempts, and the CFM56 had to be shoehorned onto it?
I'm curious to know if this affected the capabilities of the A342/3 as planned vs delivered.



This Porsche is like an Airbus;an Engineering marvel, but without passion - Jeremy Clarkson
User currently offlineRWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3261 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 13661 times:

Quoting col (Reply 7):
The only negative comments seem to be economics. For long haul it is very good for passengers, smooth and quiet. The pax pays for the economics of twins as the twins are much noisier in the cabin.

[quote=RyanairGuru,reply=11]
That said the A340 is still a great plane from a passengers perspective. Any negative comments generally start and end with those very same 'bean counters' which everyone seems to love to bash around here.

  

I wouldn't have put it this well, exactly, spot on with your perspective, the A340 will be the M11 of Airbus, as pointed out earlier in this thread. Unfortunate, nice sexy looking planes, loved Thai colors most IMO. BTW, I'm not a M11 or 340 hater, I loved them both, they were trying to sell amongst new twins that could do most of the same missions with better mpg's. Bad timing is all, if M11's or 340 came at a slightly different time in aviation, they would have possibly done better than they did.

[Edited 2012-04-21 07:31:34]


AA AC AQ AS BD BN CO CS DL EA EZ HA HP KL KN MP MW NK NW OO OZ PA PS QX RC RH RW SA TG TW UA US VS WA WC WN
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8375 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 13507 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PM (Reply 10):
Was the A340 a commercial success or a failure? The A340-300 did better than many (the MD-11 comes to mind) but poorer than others (the 777-200ER). The A345/A346 certainly didn't sell in the numbers hoped for but c'est la vie. Did Airbus lose money on any of the A340 variants? I rather doubt it.

The MD-11 was a DC-10 derivative, so its success has to be considerd in the whole Dc-10 program. The A340-500/600 have to be considered in the whole A330/340 program too, while the A340-500/600 didn't sell all that well they did sell enough to breathe new life into the A340 program. The 77W killed the A346 but the A330-300 continues to get decent orders from many airline replacing earlier A340 or A330.

Virgin Atlantic, SWISS. KLM, Lufthansa, Singapore and Cathay all have new and expanding A330-300 orders which will keep the A330 line open for another 5 years.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31000 posts, RR: 86
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 13454 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sccutler (Reply 6):
I still think it is butt-ugly, and how it manages that while bing a sibling to the gracful and elegant 330 is just beyond me.

I've always considered the A330 the less-aesthetic model with that long fuselage and wide wingspan with those two small engines. The A340's extra engines, on the other hand, nicely balance out those wide wings.

The larger diameter of the 777's fuselage and nacelles make it a more-balanced twin, to my eyes.


User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1545 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12424 times:

Quoting VHHYI (Reply 20):
Wasn't the A340 supposed to be powered by the IAE SuperFan - one of the earlier GTF attempts, and the CFM56 had to be shoehorned onto it?
I'm curious to know if this affected the capabilities of the A342/3 as planned vs delivered.

The capabilities of the A342/3 meet regulatory criteria, but the demise of the SuperFan did have one effect: the aircraft has less spectacular airfield performance than its peers. Try computing the A342/3's thrust-to-weight ration and dividing it by its wing loading (both at MTOW & max rated thrust) to arrive at a quick-and-dirty airfield performance index. Now do the same thing for other comparable aircraft: the A342/3's index is generally lower.

Not that this matters to carriers or flight crew, but it does seem to quite mightily irritate many a.nutters...


Faro



The chalice not my son
25 zeke : It actually has better airfield performance than any twin, it is required to by the one engine out minimum climb gradients. No one cares in industry
26 flanker : I love the 340 variants. It is a very comfortable aircraft to fly in. On the routes I have flown, I actually prefer it to the 777, which in my opinion
27 Revelation : I'd say not. It was and still is used by some of the worlds best airlines flying important routes in their networks, so it currently is helping put b
28 A342 : I even dare say that some airlines bought the A340 for its airfield / hot and high performance. IB and SA come to mind, as well as China Southwest Ai
29 faro : Admittedly I was talking about the all engines operating condition, yes. From an operating perspective, it does not matter given that it meets all re
30 Navigator : It is all about economics. Finances drives this business as you may know. It is the bottom line that counts. The A340 has too many engines and has to
31 SEPilot : The A340m was chiefly a victim of poor timing. When it was launched ETOPS really did not exist, and Airbus believed that long haul would belong to pla
32 Navigator : This is not the case. A twin has a requirement to be able to climb on 50 % of available thrust in case of engine failure. The A340 is certified to cl
33 Navigator : Power was there allright. It was just that 2 engines across oceans was not regarded as safe...
34 SEPilot : The engines did not exist until Boeing asked for them for the 777; the manufacturers were willing to develop them for Boeing, but I don't think that
35 Revelation : I don't buy that. The MD11 was a follow-on model, and always known to be a half-measure. In particular many knew/felt it should have a new wing or at
36 Navigator : You forget about the JT9D engine that is just fine to drive an A330 or that sort of plane. The 777 is larger but not all twins are that large
37 Post contains images Navigator : The A310, 767 etc are widebodies that are used on longhauls and thrust that was OK for those widebodies existed the minute the 747 took off in 1969
38 N1120A : Somewhere out there in the world, a certain lover of SSTs and 777s is dying to join this thread.
39 jetlanta : Last week I spoke to a lead planner at an Asian carrier that operates A340s and A330s. They told me that the fuel burn on the 340s was nearly 40% high
40 Post contains images Navigator : Right! It is the economics and nothing else that drives the A340 out of the market. Unfortunately...
41 666wizard : Dare I say it - isn't the fact twins are now more fuel efficient the reason why the 747 - sadly - is also dying? I love the 747, and will miss her, bu
42 ikramerica : They are used on mid-hauls. The range of the original 777, but Boeing had always intended on an IGW with 90k engines, something that didn't exist unt
43 A342 : And again, like zeke told you, it is engine-out performance that really matters. That figure must have been for an A345/6 vs. the A330, if it was cor
44 Post contains images astuteman : Got that right I've flown on SQ's A380's, and my favourite flight is still a LAN A340 from SCL to AKL - the sheer quality of the ride and noise (and
45 XT6Wagon : I'd call the A345/346 a failure. It grew too much, got too heavy, cost too much, and sold too little. The A342/A343 might not seem that great today,
46 gingersnap : Thankfully the 747s fantastic ability to haul huge amounts of freight, will mean the Queen will have a place in the blue yonder for many years to com
47 Post contains images seabosdca : Agreed with this assessment. And we have to also remember this: The A343 was a wake-up call to the industry. For a few years, between its EIS in 1993
48 RyanairGuru : I think this is very true. While it might have not been a spectacular success in terms of sales, I'm sure that Airbus is stronger today for the A340.
49 SEPilot : The JT9D was the 747 engine, and it was used on the 767 and A330. It was totally insufficient for a plane the size of the A330 that would have long r
50 Stitch : Even though it could perform ULH missions, the A340-200 was just too small to be economical. So Airbus had no choice but to make the A340-500 bigger
51 SEA : It isn't that the A340 is a bad plane, it's just that it's a four-holer in a world of big twins.
52 AirframeAS : I never understood the need for 4 engines on the A340 when 2 engines would do just fine. The 777 does the job great and so does the A330. The only tim
53 seabosdca : That may be clear today, but was far from clear in 1988 (when the A340 was launched) or even in 1993 (when it entered service). Remember, the first 7
54 Mir : Which really doesn't matter, since nobody plans for an all-engines takeoff. The engines didn't exist at the time to do what Airbus needed the 340 to
55 jetlanta : I phrased it incorrectly it was fuel COST that was nearly 40% higher. The rising cost of fuel impacts more heavily the aircraft that burns more fuel.
56 YVRLTN : Look at it this way, there are not many sat in the desert looking for an owner. Other than the ex OA examples with dodgy paperwork and a couple from I
57 cchan : Old A340s are a lot cheaper to acquire than an A330 or a B777, perhaps?
58 jetlanta : It says that operators are stuck in long-term leases, or even worse, own the things. The carrier I talk to was looking for anyway it could to fly its
59 zeke : The A340 was designed for long routes, in a A343 vs A332/A333 comparison, there is around 45t of additional MTOW that the A340 is capable of. The 45t
60 A342 : Which would still imply that it is burning 40% more fuel if you assume their A330 and A340 flights receive fuel at the same price. What am I missing?
61 Navigator : This is not really true. The reason the A340 got four engines had to do with engine reliability and that ETOPS was not developed yet. Engine technolo
62 SEPilot : I agree (and said before) that Airbus at the time the A330/A340 program was launched did not foresee the widespread acceptance of ETOPS and that the
63 dennys : The A340 is definitely one of the finest looking and performing airplane ! just keep in mind these starments before saying anything about this 4 holer
64 Post contains images EPA001 : And they are indeed so easily forgotten by many since memory serves them usually (too) short. .
65 YYZYYT : Talk of the lack of take off performance is common... but from a spotter's point of view, sitting next to the business end of an active runway, take-
66 OldAeroGuy : Not always. FAR 25.113(a)(2) states that the takeoff distance must not be less than 115 precent of the all engines takeoff distance. For a low powere
67 daviation : As a passenger, I have only flown on one A340-600. It was elegant in every maneuver - takeoff, climb, turn. Having said that, I thought it was the mos
68 Revelation : I had a similar experience. My seat was in the very last row in coach, so it was right against the back wall, and it could not recline at all, and I
69 AirframeAS : This makes me wonder... and I have to ask: Is this an Airbus thing or something?? I have noticed every Airbus I have flown on has the last row seats
70 DocLightning : At the time that Airbus started to design the A340, the two widebody twins in service (A300/310 and 767) were both relatively new. Twin-engine widebo
71 rwessel : No, I've seen it on Boeings. It's just where the airline mounted the last seat. 8-9 inches further forward, and they'd be able to install one that re
72 zeke : So which aircraft has better takeoff performance A 777-200ER with a 275,000 kg MTOW or A340-300 at 275,000 kg ATOW A A330-300 or A340-300 at 230,000
73 OldAeroGuy : Sea level, ISA + 15 deg C for all cases 777-200ER with GE90-94B : 2600m (MTOW for the 777-200ER is actually 297.6t) A340-400 with CFM56-5C4: 3120m In
74 Post contains links dennys : Not too bad news for the A340 : http://www.airlinesanddestinations.c...ing-washington-d-c-in-spring-2013/
75 zeke : I was rather specific about the 777-200ER MTOW, as I knew it would not be the highest available thrust rating for that MTOW. For example, BA has 777-
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...
Why Do So Many 767s Land W/o Reverse Thrust? posted Wed Nov 2 2005 22:44:18 by Ilovenz
Why Do So Many Airlines Fly SIN-Jakarta? posted Wed Jul 14 2004 06:15:59 by Spark
Why Do So Many Refuse To Cede MS990 As Suicide? posted Thu Jan 15 2004 19:45:35 by ConcordeBoy
Why Do So Many People Prefer Bulkheads? posted Sat Sep 21 2002 17:48:23 by Zrs70
L1011 - Why Do So Many Love This Old Plane? posted Fri Apr 12 2002 03:24:17 by Matt_milligan
Why Do So Many Planes Leaving JFK Crash? posted Mon Nov 12 2001 21:15:06 by Tripple7
Why Do Many Airlines Dim The Lights.... posted Wed Jul 30 2008 00:16:32 by EHCPH
Why Do Boeing And Airbus Need So Many Planes? posted Tue Mar 21 2006 15:59:59 by Wdleiser
Why Do You Like The A340's? posted Wed Jul 25 2001 08:06:16 by Cliperb777
Why Do AC Use A340-300s On LHR Routes.... posted Tue May 29 2001 23:27:26 by 777kicksass