boeingfever777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 409 posts, RR: 56 Posted (11 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 20323 times:
I believe carriers can still order this... However...
EK, canceled (20) a/c order siting delays in a delay in the delivery of the aircraft pending enhancements.
CX, ditched their (3) leased fro, ILFC in favor of the 77W. Who these went to I do not know...
MU, will be doing the same, ditching their (5) in place of a (20) 77W order. Will miss the "Better City Better Life" scheme.
EY, keeping the a346, selling the a345 to V0.
HU, I believe got (3) from ILFC from CX return. They make use of them only flying international to YYZ I believe.
IB, staying for now I believe they have (16/17) active.
LH, (24) active and staying as far as I know.
QR, Phasing out their (4) and replacing with 77W. Who are they going to?
SA, Have (6) they ordered and lease (3) I believe, backbone of their longhaul fleet.
TG, phasing out all (6) by 2015 I believe. Replacement 77W with a firm order from Boeing for (6) on 08/2011.
VS, (19) in the fleet I believe and they are phasing out (4) in the 4th quarter of this year.
Do you see any future carriers ordering this or would they look directly to the a350-1000 or 77W? How successful would one say this model is/was? I know the a340-500 is fewer but can definitely haul the miles, why was this not more successful with carriers that have extensive overseas networks? Will their come a time when Airbus cancels the line and concentrates on a existing or new model? Also would they look to go with a freighter version of either variant? a345F or a346F?
I have flown the a340-600 with CX, LH, and VS and the a340-500 with SQ and found both aircraft amazingly comfortable and stable.
Quoting boeingfever777 (Thread starter): Will their come a time when Airbus cancels the line and concentrates on a existing or new model? Also would they look to go with a freighter version of either variant? a345F or a346F?
I kinda doubt we will see a freighter version of the A346. The A345 maybe could be used as a conversion freighter from existing pax models but still kinda doubt that one as well. I think we could possibly see a converted A343 freighter before we see a A345/ A346 freighter.
[Edited 2012-06-06 23:44:04]
Blast Reality, Burst it into shreds! Banishment, This World!
HS-TLA del. 04/05
HS-TLB del. 04/05
HS-TLC del. 10/05
HS-TLD del. 04/07
Last Flight with TG was 29/04/2012 Thread: Thai A340-500 Routes After April 2012 (by TR1 Apr 23 2012 in Civil Aviation)?threadid=5446692&searchid=5449572&s=Thai#ID5449572
On the BKK-LAX route they have been swapped to B772/B773 according to TG's Website. Where they are now I don't know. Would be a shame to see them converted in to freighters as they are very young aircrafts and hope will be integrated to a other fleet. Was thinking maybe JJ but they seemed to store there A345 also. One other idea is that they get cheaply sold or low leasing fares as Government aircrafts? Any thoughts about this?
LX is looking for a replacement of there A343 to S.America and maybe will get the A346 (can only guess)!!
TR will follow; ZRH-DME SVO-HKT, HKT-SIN, SIN-KUL, KUL-HKT, HKT-SVO & DME-ZRH on LX, UN and AirAsia
AirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 1911 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (11 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 19654 times:
The operators who want to keep their A346s will be able to top up their fleets with some very attractively priced secondhand units, like Delta buying second hand MD90s.
I'd love the UK government to buy a secondhand A345, but it will never happen
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 1): Airbus has cancelled the A340 program. That was announced last November.
I think it is out of production due to lack of new orders. The airbus website lists total orders for the A340 family at 377 with total deliveries at 375. I assume new orders could still be produced based on this sentence:
The jetliner is built on the same final assembly line as Airbus’ popular A330, ensuring that A340 production slots are available to meet commercial requirements.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 36 Reply 7, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 19214 times:
Quoting Unflug (Reply 6): I don't expect new orders, though.
Me neither. That ship has sailed away. Sadly enough the A340-600's days as an attractive new bird are over due to the competition which produced the overall for airlines more attractive airplane.
poLot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 1499 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 18562 times:
Quoting Unflug (Reply 6):
I think it is out of production due to lack of new orders. The airbus website lists total orders for the A340 family at 377 with total deliveries at 375. I assume new orders could still be produced based on this sentence:
No, production is completely closed, an airline cannot order more if they wanted to. The A340 may have built on the same line as the A330, but there are A340 specific components, i.e. the center landing gear. There is a backlog of two aircraft because Airbus has 2 A345s originally destined to Kingfisher that have not been delivered to anyone.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 9, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 18210 times:
The A345/A346 were great planes; unfortunately for them, the 77L/77W offered significantly better economics and very similar load capacities. From what I have seen, the only place where the A345/A346 beat them was hot-and-high. That, in a nutshell, is why orders dried up and Airbus is no longer taking orders for them.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
scouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3254 posts, RR: 10 Reply 10, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 18063 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 9): The A345/A346 were great planes; unfortunately for them, the 77L/77W offered significantly better economics and very similar load capacities.
The addition to that, is that between the launch time and the early 2000s the cost of fuel went up massively and the made the A345/6 more are more uncompetative compared to the T7 to the point that the A340 was closed down last year and the two A345s that IT ordered but couldn't afford are sitting there unsold 3 years later.
YULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2109 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 16961 times:
I think the largest operators will grow their fleets by acquiring some in second-hand for good deals. LH, IB, VS could be some of them.
I doubt most -600 are going to stop flying anytime soon.
But, seeing that many young fleets have been traded to other airlines, or may be traded soon, this was another incentive to Airbus to halt production, as airlines who want more A346 will likely be able to get some in timelines no longer than it would take to Airbus to build new ones (considering how busy the line is with the A330). Hence, they closed the line because the market for new A345/6 simply is not there anymore. Or if it is, it is too small to justify keeping the A340 part of the line open. Airbus was better off dedicating all its resources to the A330 on this line. (and to the Whale, also...)
Did Airbus break even on the A340-500/600 program by the way? (i seem to remember that they did, thanks to the -600, but the -500 pulled that success down a little bit).
Quoting B738FlyUIA (Reply 3): LX is looking for a replacement of there A343 to S.America and maybe will get the A346 (can only guess)!!
LX being part of LH, this is a possibility and I certainly do hope this becomes true!
sturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 264 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (11 months 3 weeks ago) and read 15621 times:
The LX possibility was discussed in an earlier thread I believe. That would be quite exciting to see. However, I do hope they pick up some frames on the market (like the EY or QR birds), instead of LH rolling over their frames to LX. I know that the latter is more likely to happen, but I don't wanna see fewer A346s in LH colours
anstar From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 4848 posts, RR: 6 Reply 14, posted (11 months 3 weeks ago) and read 15241 times:
Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 13): I think the largest operators will grow their fleets by acquiring some in second-hand for good deals. LH, IB, VS could be some of them.
Given VS are already returning 4 x 346's this year - I don't think we'll see more in the fleet.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 15, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 14785 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12): I believe one of the undelivered A-340s was the A-346 that tried to jump the blast fence during a four engine high power run.
No, that one was written off and a replacement was built. As I understand it there are two A345's that are sitting at Toulouse because the airline that ordered them (Kingfisher?) can't afford to pay for them.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
neutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 351 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 14395 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 16): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
I believe one of the undelivered A-340s was the A-346 that tried to jump the blast fence during a four engine high power run.
No, that one was written off and a replacement was built. As I understand it there are two A345's that are sitting at Toulouse because the airline that ordered them (Kingfisher?) can't afford to pay for them.
Quoting Unflug (Reply 6): The airbus website lists total orders for the A340 family at 377 with total deliveries at 375.
No. Contrary to what SEPilot said no replacement was built for the Etihad A346 that was written off in TLS. Etihad only has 7 A346s, while they originally had 8 on order.
neutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 351 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 13995 times:
Quoting poLot (Reply 18): No. Contrary to what SEPilot said no replacement was built for the Etihad A346 that was written off in TLS. Etihad only has 7 A346s, while they originally had 8 on order.
In that case, wouldn't the number delivered be 374 instead of 375? Or was the Eithad bird considered as delivered?
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 19, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 13597 times:
Quoting poLot (Reply 18): No. Contrary to what SEPilot said no replacement was built for the Etihad A346 that was written off in TLS. Etihad only has 7 A346s, while they originally had 8 on order.
OK, I stand (actually I am sitting) corrected. How does this one fit in the total, then? It was never delivered, and there are still the two A345's undelivered, aren't there?
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
poLot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 1499 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 13205 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 20): OK, I stand (actually I am sitting) corrected. How does this one fit in the total, then? It was never delivered, and there are still the two A345's undelivered, aren't there?
After I typed and posted that I had the same thought as you, and honestly I am not sure. There is definitely 1 Kingfisher plane that has never been delivered (the one that for a while was suppose to go to Air Zimbabwe). But it gets very confusing when you start considering the VIP planes, did Kuwait ever take delivery of their 2nd A345?
The whole Kingfisher situation and who got what plane and what was suppose to be a Kingfisher plane versus a new order makes following the end of the A345 production a mess. I'm not sure if when writing off the plane they considered it a delivery (to the insurance company ) or if they are just excluding that from the number built (because it was built and they did fly it at least once I believe).
SEA From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 215 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 12192 times:
Quoting poLot (Reply 21): I'm not sure if when writing off the plane they considered it a delivery (to the insurance company ) or if they are just excluding that from the number built (because it was built and they did fly it at least once I believe).
It was completed but not delivered, so it's not included in deliveries. The replacement is,
aerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 6326 posts, RR: 14 Reply 23, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 12018 times:
their future is as coke cans in all honesty. As lovely as they are, They will not make the cargo conversion list and unless they replace similar aircraft in existing VIP state fleets I cannot see them lasting after the initial operators dispose of them.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 24, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 12111 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 23): Maybe they could be used as converted freighters?
There aren't enough of any one model to justify the cost of developing and certifying the conversion. Each model has to have its own conversion designed and certified; it cannot be done as a family.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
25 poLot: As I mentioned, there was no replacement. In fact of I have found an article in which they confirm that they cancelled the crashed A340's order.
26 mvecchi4: Hello! I have information that V0 (Conviasa Venezuela) ultimately decided not to buy the aircraft because of the heavy emphasis in luxury EY has on th
27 ba319-131: - The A340 program is indeed finished or dead as you prefer, however none of the current operators is rushing to take their entire A340 fleets out of
28 Talaier: The A346 was an extremely good fit for long flights with very restricted payloads. Two of its biggest operators, IB and SA, have their main hubs at hi
29 ScottB: . IMO the reason the A340 was cancelled was that the lack of orders made the supply chain unsustainable; suppliers don't want to have to maintain too
30 jumpjets: IB has a batch of A333s on order [8 orders and 8 options] whilst IAG [per an article out today] mulls a joint order for BA and IB of A350s or 777X -
31 SEPilot: OK, this answers my question. For bookkeeping purposes the aircraft was never built, and so does not get counted in the ordered/delivered tally, even
32 flightsimboy: Don't forget the Sky team colour scheme. Absolutely gorgeous on the A346 (As well as on the 744 though with other Skyteam carriers) No other aircraft
33 BasilFawlty: AR was rumoured as the new operator a while ago. Yes they did, both are now in SKF for VIP-cabin installation.
34 manny: So was the A340 program profitable and did it recover its developmental costs ? IMO the existing A340 operators will be able to sustain A340s on their
35 scbriml: Very restricted payloads? The A346 has better payload, more range and lower fuel burn than a 744. If it weren't for the 77W, the A346 would have been
36 poLot: Based on where he was going with his comment, I think he meant that the A346 is good in situations where twins start to falter (the "restricted paylo
37 fridgmus: Absolutely correct! Although I think the A345 is just as beautiful as the A346. I flew on EK's A345's and B777's a couple of times DXB-MEL-DXB and wh
38 lightsaber: While Airbus might still be able to assemble the airframes on their lines, the vendors are done. Parts are no longer made at the prior prices, now an
39 flightsimboy: You knew when I said that I meant her sister the Airbus A340-500 as well (In fact all Airbus long haul aircraft). No honestly while strictly talking
40 Unflug: How do they handle repairs where replacement parts are needed? The center landing gear was mentioned as being unique to the A340 - do they have a cer
41 sturmovik: As beautiful as the A346 is, my vote goes for the A345. There is something about that bird.. beautiful proportions, and 4 engines..
42 B738FlyUIA: ... 4 long haul!!! EK use to have them on there evening flight from ZRH-DXB that is now changed to 77W and 77L. Yes, as the only A346 now is a daily
43 flanker: I just flew ORD MUC on LH with the -600 and it was amazing. The thrust on takeoff with a full plane was spectacular!! Very comfy as well.
44 B2468: Agreed! 346 is my favourite aircraft to fly as a passenger! /used to be 727, but they aren't around much anymore...
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 409 posts, 
From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 1405 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Dec 2009, 473 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3128 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 1911 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2012, 191 posts, 
.
From India, joined May 2007, 264 posts, 
From Singapore, joined May 2012, 351 posts, 
) or if they are just excluding that from the number built (because it was built and they did fly it at least once I believe).
From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, 
From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 6326 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
