777PHX
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 4:36 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:50 am

They're inefficient with a low residual value and no demand.
 
Enzed
Topic Author
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 5:47 am

Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:52 am

Looking at the 10 ey birds that have recently been acquired by European as case in point.
 
sxf24
Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:23 am

The engines are horrendously expensive to maintain and the fact that Rolls-Royce controls the entire market eliminates and residual value and kills any airline flexibility.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 1822
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:08 am

Plus it was introduced right as the B77W was announced. Many airlines waited for that, seeing that as a better belly cargo bird. Only 131 combined of both types got built. Also, and this is especially true for the A340-500---it's way too heavy a plane (372t---380t for the Kingfisher NTUs) with too small a capacity in passenger type and heavier than the B77L (which is 348t). The reason why the A340-300 flies until end of life is because it isn't too big if converted to a mostly-Y configuration; its costs are similar to that of a B777-200ER but with smaller engines.
Last edited by aemoreira1981 on Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:35 am, edited 3 times in total.
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 316
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:20 am

For the A345, a 77L has similar cabin floor area (both ~285m^2), has similar-ish payload-range, and is 25tons lighter OEW, i.e it's basically a better plane for the few ULR routes that need the capabilities. For those who don't, a 77E or A330 just made more sense for similar capacity, hence, low sales for both models.

For the A346, a 77W has more cabin floor area (~325 vs ~345m^2), still has similar payload-range, and is 10tons lighter OEW, which basically makes it a cheaper bird to run for 95% of operators.

The fact that 10-abreast started catching on in the 777s basically means that the floor area of the 777 can be utilized more densely and efficiently than the 8-abreast from the A330/340 fuselage.
 
Enzed
Topic Author
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 5:47 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:33 am

JustSomeDood wrote:
For the A345, a 77L has similar cabin floor area (both ~285m^2), has similar-ish payload-range, and is 25tons lighter OEW, i.e it's basically a better plane for the few ULR routes that need the capabilities. For those who don't, a 77E or A330 just made more sense for similar capacity, hence, low sales for both models.

For the A346, a 77W has more cabin floor area (~325 vs ~345m^2), still has similar payload-range, and is 10tons lighter OEW, which basically makes it a cheaper bird to run for 95% of operators.

The fact that 10-abreast started catching on in the 777s basically means that the floor area of the 777 can be utilized more densely and efficiently than the 8-abreast from the A330/340 fuselage.
so European must have got a deal from hell buying 10 from ey ? Guess fuel and maintainence costs outwayed by low acquisition costs & long range.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 14906
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:57 am

JustSomeDood wrote:
For the A345, a 77L has similar cabin floor area (both ~285m^2), has similar-ish payload-range, and is 25tons lighter OEW, i.e it's basically a better plane for the few ULR routes that need the capabilities. For those who don't, a 77E or A330 just made more sense for similar capacity, hence, low sales for both models.

For the A346, a 77W has more cabin floor area (~325 vs ~345m^2), still has similar payload-range, and is 10tons lighter OEW, which basically makes it a cheaper bird to run for 95% of operators.

The fact that 10-abreast started catching on in the 777s basically means that the floor area of the 777 can be utilized more densely and efficiently than the 8-abreast from the A330/340 fuselage.

Excellent summary.

I would just add:
1. GE90s had a slightly lower TSFC.
2. Two GE90s cost less to main

If there hadn't been a 777-300ER, the A340-600 would have done well carrying passengers for less than a 744. But instead, one plane sold over a thousand and the other too few to pay for its development.

Nowhere is it more true that efficiency is relative than in aviation.


Those A345s and A346s will have it tougher as more 787s and A350s enter the fleet.

Lightsaber
You only have the first amendment with the 2nd. If you're not going to offend someone with what you say, you don't have the 1st.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 5587
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:23 am

The combination of the 77W wing improvements and the GE90-115B surprised even Boeing when test flight started. I'm sure Airbus expected the 346 to come close to the 77W in efficiency and to have superior payload-range. Instead, the 77W matched the 346 on payload-range (except in hot/high situations) and absolutely killed the 346 on efficiency. And, thanks to robust A330 sales and Boeing's efforts to speed 777 production, the 346 didn't even have an availability advantage.
 
OMAAbound
Posts: 137
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2016 12:43 am

A340 discussion

Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:13 pm

Recently, Virgin Atlantic bought a stored A340-600 for around $20m and you can pick up Etihads old A340-500's and A340-600's for around $30m-$40m.

Now, this seems like a bargain in comparison, but, how long roughly would it take too offset the cost of buying a new a350/787 in comparison to buying used A340's and the extra fees, fuels, crewing etc.

Interested to know people's thoughts?

OMAA
Right hand seat of a 787. Also can be found eating sandwiches, drinking coffee and attempting to understand Chinese ATC!
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 10310
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sat Mar 10, 2018 9:27 pm

For some routes with hot and high issues, and low utilization of aircraft, I'm sure they still make sense, especially bought cheap.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
kjeld0d
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 9:21 pm

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sat Mar 10, 2018 9:37 pm

Hopefully we will see some VIP conversions.
 
JamesCousins
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: A340 discussion

Sat Mar 10, 2018 9:43 pm

OMAAbound wrote:
Recently, Virgin Atlantic bought a stored A340-600 for around $20m and you can pick up Etihads old A340-500's and A340-600's for around $30m-$40m.


Wait how do you know that's how much VS paid, that's literally pennies, although I know a lot of work was involved in it's reintroduction..
A320-200, A321-200, 737-500, 737-800, 747-400, 757-200, 787-9
 
JamesCousins
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sat Mar 10, 2018 9:44 pm

Aesma wrote:
For some routes with hot and high issues, and low utilization of aircraft, I'm sure they still make sense, especially bought cheap.


Iberia is a prime example, they aren't retiring many of theirs for years yet...
A320-200, A321-200, 737-500, 737-800, 747-400, 757-200, 787-9
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sat Mar 10, 2018 9:47 pm

sxf24 wrote:
The engines are horrendously expensive to maintain and the fact that Rolls-Royce controls the entire market eliminates and residual value and kills any airline flexibility.

Possibly not the case. If EY negotiated a buyback with Airbus, deal usually includes mandatory transferrable fixed price PBTH, based on latest buyback plus 2 or 3 years.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 1822
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sat Mar 10, 2018 10:39 pm

kjeld0d wrote:
Hopefully we will see some VIP conversions.


What governments would want one that don't already have one? This is a plane that could be useful to Israel (even getting 2 now that one doesn't have to deal with Etihad as a seller), but the government isn't likely interested in that heavy a plane when a 767-300ER is half its weight (187t compared to 372t) and, with modifications, can easily do 6,400 nmi. The UK might have considered this a few years ago, but instead converted some of the non-surge A330MRTTs for VIP use. France likewise bought an A332 Prestige, as did Turkey (although Turkey later did buy Tunisia's A345 to fly with its A332). Italy leases the only A345 not sold by Etihad to European Aviation.

The problem for the A346, unlike the A343, is that it would be too much plane if not in a 3- or 4-class configuration, and few airlines would need range that can't be satisfied with a higher-MTOW A333 in a Y440 configuration (looking at Lion Air or Cebu Pacific)...after all, who would seriously consider a Y475 configuration on a 372t A346 when one can do Y440 on a 238t or 242t A333? At least the A343 can work in a Y354 configuration that Turkish is using for hajj duty. The A345 was produced in too few an amount to make a P2F program viable; had more than 100 been built, such could be viable.
 
User avatar
TS-IOR
Posts: 3602
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2001 9:44 pm

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sat Mar 10, 2018 10:45 pm

The airlines, or better say operators, as most of the buyers are ACMI and charter specialists, will use them sporadically or seasonally and can't afford other than a lower price.
 
Bald1983
Posts: 507
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sat Mar 10, 2018 11:21 pm

Because they are too expensive to operate and the newer large twins like the 787 and the A-350 will mop the floor with them. Same reason the A-380 is not exactly a stellar product.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 14906
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sat Mar 10, 2018 11:31 pm

TS-IOR wrote:
The airlines, or better say operators, as most of the buyers are ACMI and charter specialists, will use them sporadically or seasonally and can't afford other than a lower price.

Rephrase:
A few A345 and A346s found a reprieve from being scrapped thanks to their resale value dropping so low a few charter operations found a business case. But very high variable costs prevent the Trent500 powered aircraft from being competitive in even moderate utilization service.

Lightsaber
You only have the first amendment with the 2nd. If you're not going to offend someone with what you say, you don't have the 1st.
 
sxf24
Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sun Mar 11, 2018 1:30 am

Planesmart wrote:
sxf24 wrote:
The engines are horrendously expensive to maintain and the fact that Rolls-Royce controls the entire market eliminates and residual value and kills any airline flexibility.

Possibly not the case. If EY negotiated a buyback with Airbus, deal usually includes mandatory transferrable fixed price PBTH, based on latest buyback plus 2 or 3 years.


EY did not have buybacks on the A340s.

To my knowledge, the only airline that had Residual Value Guarantees on the A340s were VS and IB.
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1062
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sun Mar 11, 2018 1:40 am

I'm somewhat surprised that the A345 hasn't become popular as a Head of State aircraft. It's range, size, and having 4 engines (if that's appealing to nations other than the US) would seem to make it ideal in that role where efficiency is also not much of a concern. I suppose that could apply to the entire A340 lineup too.
 
Enzed
Topic Author
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 5:47 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sun Mar 11, 2018 2:29 am

JustSomeDood wrote:
For the A345, a 77L has similar cabin floor area (both ~285m^2), has similar-ish payload-range, and is 25tons lighter OEW, i.e it's basically a better plane for the few ULR routes that need the capabilities. For those who don't, a 77E or A330 just made more sense for similar capacity, hence, low sales for both models.

For the A346, a 77W has more cabin floor area (~325 vs ~345m^2), still has similar payload-range, and is 10tons lighter OEW, which basically makes it a cheaper bird to run for 95% of operators.

The fact that 10-abreast started catching on in the 777s basically means that the floor area of the 777 can be utilized more densely and efficiently than the 8-abreast from the A330/340 fuselage.
but a330/340 can be nine abreast. Think that's only way you can get 475 seats on a 346.

So if an operator were to get a 345/6 for very little, they could fly long missions much longer than a 330 relatively cheaply.
Could vs eg. do lhr/per nonstop with a 345 or 346 in opposition to new qf route starting this month ? They could link up with va at per & give qf a run for their money.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 8422
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sun Mar 11, 2018 3:03 am

Enzed wrote:
JustSomeDood wrote:
For the A345, a 77L has similar cabin floor area (both ~285m^2), has similar-ish payload-range, and is 25tons lighter OEW, i.e it's basically a better plane for the few ULR routes that need the capabilities. For those who don't, a 77E or A330 just made more sense for similar capacity, hence, low sales for both models.

For the A346, a 77W has more cabin floor area (~325 vs ~345m^2), still has similar payload-range, and is 10tons lighter OEW, which basically makes it a cheaper bird to run for 95% of operators.

The fact that 10-abreast started catching on in the 777s basically means that the floor area of the 777 can be utilized more densely and efficiently than the 8-abreast from the A330/340 fuselage.
but a330/340 can be nine abreast. Think that's only way you can get 475 seats on a 346.

So if an operator were to get a 345/6 for very little, they could fly long missions much longer than a 330 relatively cheaply.
Could vs eg. do lhr/per nonstop with a 345 or 346 in opposition to new qf route starting this month ? They could link up with va at per & give qf a run for their money.

“Relatively cheaply” if you only look at acquisition costs. QF would eat VS alive if they attempted something like that. The 789 that QF is running would burn far far far less fuel. 787 maintenance costs would likely be cheaper too. Remember that VS has 789s as well.

The A345/A346’s relative fuel inefficiency compared to the 77W, let alone even newer jets like the A350 or 787, means that is more painful to use them on longer flights. That is where fuel efficiency really starts to matter. Shorter flights can be operated by far more efficient equipment. Longer flight can be operated by more efficient equipment. The only place the A340NG excels is in hot and high markets, which is niche. Which is why most operators have or are in the process of dumping their fleets rather than find a role for the aircraft until the end of typical aircraft life.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 1822
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sun Mar 11, 2018 4:22 am

Slug71 wrote:
I'm somewhat surprised that the A345 hasn't become popular as a Head of State aircraft. It's range, size, and having 4 engines (if that's appealing to nations other than the US) would seem to make it ideal in that role where efficiency is also not much of a concern. I suppose that could apply to the entire A340 lineup too.


Actually, of the 11 active A340-500s, 7 are head-of-state aircraft and 1 other is a VIP frame owned by the Sands Corporation. The other 3 are Azerbaijan A345s (their VIP plane is an A346---all are leased) and one charter frame owned by Hi Fly...which is why I wouldn't be surprised if 5K decides to add a stored A345 if the purchase or lease price (on a power-by-the-hour basis) is low enough.
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1062
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sun Mar 11, 2018 4:27 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
I'm somewhat surprised that the A345 hasn't become popular as a Head of State aircraft. It's range, size, and having 4 engines (if that's appealing to nations other than the US) would seem to make it ideal in that role where efficiency is also not much of a concern. I suppose that could apply to the entire A340 lineup too.


Actually, of the 11 active A340-500s, 7 are head-of-state aircraft and 1 other is a VIP frame owned by the Sands Corporation. The other 3 are Azerbaijan A345s (their VIP plane is an A346---all are leased) and one charter frame owned by Hi Fly...which is why I wouldn't be surprised if 5K decides to add a stored A345 if the purchase or lease price (on a power-by-the-hour basis) is low enough.


Interesting. Thank you, I wasn't aware of that.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sun Mar 11, 2018 4:49 am

sxf24 wrote:
Planesmart wrote:
sxf24 wrote:
The engines are horrendously expensive to maintain and the fact that Rolls-Royce controls the entire market eliminates and residual value and kills any airline flexibility.

Possibly not the case. If EY negotiated a buyback with Airbus, deal usually includes mandatory transferrable fixed price PBTH, based on latest buyback plus 2 or 3 years.


EY did not have buybacks on the A340s.

To my knowledge, the only airline that had Residual Value Guarantees on the A340s were VS and IB.

Most 600 customers were offered three options - retrospective buybacks, compensation, no cost HGW replacement. Some selected more than one.

RR recently offered more attractive low use PBTH terms and pricing which might see the A340 live on a little longer for executive, government and ad hoc charter.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25579
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sun Mar 11, 2018 5:08 am

JustSomeDood wrote:
The fact that 10-abreast started catching on in the 777s basically means that the floor area of the 777 can be utilized more densely and efficiently than the 8-abreast from the A330/340 fuselage.

Enzed wrote:
but a330/340 can be nine abreast. Think that's only way you can get 475 seats on a 346.


The A340-600 seats 475 in an all-Economy 8-abreast configuration.


sxf24 wrote:
The engines are horrendously expensive to maintain and the fact that Rolls-Royce controls the entire market eliminates and residual value and kills any airline flexibility.


In December 2013 Airbus and Rolls-Royce held a marketing event on the A340 family where RR agreed to reduce the maintenance cost of the Trent 500 to match that of the GE90-115B.


Planesmart wrote:
If EY negotiated a buyback with Airbus, deal usually includes mandatory transferrable fixed price PBTH, based on latest buyback plus 2 or 3 years.

sxf24 wrote:
EY did not have buybacks on the A340s. To my knowledge, the only airline that had Residual Value Guarantees on the A340s were VS and IB.


Douglas S. Harned of Bernstein Research estimated that 40 percent of the 119 A340-500 and A340-600 models in service in 2013 had asset-value guarantees of $60 million to $70 million (though the frames had a market value of less than $20 million).
 
brindabella
Posts: 400
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:15 am

Stitch wrote:
JustSomeDood wrote:
The fact that 10-abreast started catching on in the 777s basically means that the floor area of the 777 can be utilized more densely and efficiently than the 8-abreast from the A330/340 fuselage.

Enzed wrote:
but a330/340 can be nine abreast. Think that's only way you can get 475 seats on a 346.


The A340-600 seats 475 in an all-Economy 8-abreast configuration.


sxf24 wrote:
The engines are horrendously expensive to maintain and the fact that Rolls-Royce controls the entire market eliminates and residual value and kills any airline flexibility.


In December 2013 Airbus and Rolls-Royce held a marketing event on the A340 family where RR agreed to reduce the maintenance cost of the Trent 500 to match that of the GE90-115B.


Planesmart wrote:
If EY negotiated a buyback with Airbus, deal usually includes mandatory transferrable fixed price PBTH, based on latest buyback plus 2 or 3 years.

sxf24 wrote:
EY did not have buybacks on the A340s. To my knowledge, the only airline that had Residual Value Guarantees on the A340s were VS and IB.


Douglas S. Harned of Bernstein Research estimated that 40 percent of the 119 A340-500 and A340-600 models in service in 2013 had asset-value guarantees of $60 million to $70 million (though the frames had a market value of less than $20 million).


IIRC the thrust of the "marketing event" was to convince operators that the 345/346 could be configured & operated differently (and so profitably). The "buyback" was mentioned at the time, with a "contingent liability" to Airbus of say $2Bn. No idea how it all worked out.

cheers
Billy
 
WIederling
Posts: 6332
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:25 am

seabosdca wrote:
I'm sure Airbus expected the 346 to come close to the 77W in efficiency and to have superior payload-range. Instead, the 77W matched the 346 on payload-range (except in hot/high situations) and absolutely killed the 346 on efficiency. .


A340NG (EIS:2002) was quite a bit earlier than the 77W (EIS:2004).
Boeing thus knew where to aim for. My guess: they also made offers one could not walk away from.
the GE90-115 was a maintenance hog early on.
Murphy is an optimist
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3436
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sun Mar 11, 2018 4:21 pm

WIederling wrote:
A340NG (EIS:2002) was quite a bit earlier than the 77W (EIS:2004).
Boeing thus knew where to aim for. My guess: they also made offers one could not walk away from.
the GE90-115 was a maintenance hog early on.


The two year earlier A346 EIS had zero impact on the 773ER program. Boeing just continued to execute on their plan and airframe and engine both turned out better than predicted in terms of fuel mileage.

A serendipitous result was that takeoff performance was better than predicted, allowing increased takeoff weights at the specified TOFL. Coupled with a final analysis structural margin, it was possible to increase MTOW from 759K lb to 775K lb with minor retrofittable changes.

In short, every important performance measure was better than predicted for the 773ER and its market success was the result. Nothing was changed due to the A346 EIS date.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
WIederling
Posts: 6332
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sun Mar 11, 2018 5:07 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
In short, every important performance measure was better than predicted for the 773ER and its market success was the result. Nothing was changed due to the A346 EIS date.


color me unimpressed.
Why was the GE90-115 a maintenance hog and a massive NOx polluter early on?
My guess would be from raising some performance parameters for that little bit of extra.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25579
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sun Mar 11, 2018 5:32 pm

WIederling wrote:
A340NG (EIS:2002) was quite a bit earlier than the 77W (EIS:2004). Boeing thus knew where to aim for. My guess: they also made offers one could not walk away from.


Well we know Airbus made SAA an offer they could not walk away from them to switch them from choosing the 777-300ER in an RFP between the two, so... :scratchchin:


WIederling wrote:
Why was the GE90-115 a maintenance hog and a massive NOx polluter early on? My guess would be from raising some performance parameters for that little bit of extra.


The PW4090 was the engine that generated high levels of NOx - it's why they could not certify it to it's maximum rated thrust at EIS (the TALON combustor introduced with the PW4098 addressed this so I am guessing it was PiP'd back into earlier engines to allow them to make rated thrust).

As for the GE90, the original model did indeed have high(er) maintenance costs and this helped push BA to switch to the Trent 800 on later deliveries. But by the time the GE90-115B arrived those issues were all worked out and maintenance costs were significantly lower than they were for the Trent 500 (which is why RR had to agree to match them in order to try and help Airbus re-sell A340-600s).
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 8422
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sun Mar 11, 2018 5:51 pm

Even if Boeing increased performance to beat the earlier A340NG who cares? That is one of the disadvantages of being the first mover. The competition knows what the benchmark is. You think Airbus didn’t look closely at the 777/787 specs when it came time to define the A350?
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 3803
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:10 pm

Polot wrote:
Even if Boeing increased performance to beat the earlier A340NG who cares? That is one of the disadvantages of being the first mover. The competition knows what the benchmark is. You think Airbus didn’t look closely at the 777/787 specs when it came time to define the A350?


They didn't didn't listen well enough. They needed Udvar-Hazy to push them into the XWB format.

He credited the president of the company's "number one customer" - Steve Udvar-Hazy of International Lease Finance - for finally pushing Airbus to design a truly competitive rival to the 787. "Steve Hazy told us 'don't run for the silver medal when you able to run for the gold - give me an aircraft that is ahead of the present standard of the industry'."

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... or-208045/

But yes, your benchmarking reference is a good one. 'They could have done better with more time' is a weak argument. Airbus chose the timeline and features for the failed A340-500/600.
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 316
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:32 pm

WIederling wrote:
seabosdca wrote:
I'm sure Airbus expected the 346 to come close to the 77W in efficiency and to have superior payload-range. Instead, the 77W matched the 346 on payload-range (except in hot/high situations) and absolutely killed the 346 on efficiency. .


A340NG (EIS:2002) was quite a bit earlier than the 77W (EIS:2004).
Boeing thus knew where to aim for. My guess: they also made offers one could not walk away from.


You mean like the asset-value guarantees that are so common among the A340NGs? I certainly don't recall that being necessary to sell 77Ws...
 
WIederling
Posts: 6332
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Mon Mar 12, 2018 7:55 am

JustSomeDood wrote:
You mean like the asset-value guarantees that are so common among the A340NGs? I certainly don't recall that being necessary to sell 77Ws...


All busy in deflection mode. I. see. So I am probably not off with my guess.
Adding incentive via pricing while attributing success to technical prowess.
Boeing MoO.
Murphy is an optimist
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 316
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:32 am

WIederling wrote:
JustSomeDood wrote:
You mean like the asset-value guarantees that are so common among the A340NGs? I certainly don't recall that being necessary to sell 77Ws...


All busy in deflection mode. I. see. So I am probably not off with my guess.
Adding incentive via pricing while attributing success to technical prowess.
Boeing MoO.


Unlike Airbus, which built a plane so unattractive, that they had to effectively incorporate put options with the plane to sell, the effects of which can still be seen on the balance sheet and bite Airbus in the ass should the airlines exercise such options. :roll:
 
Pacific
Posts: 1113
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:54 am

Don't think anybody in the right mind predicted the 777-300ER to beat promise by 10%. This 10% free performance killed the A340NG.
 
QF744ER
Posts: 348
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 7:59 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:35 am

Polot wrote:
Enzed wrote:
JustSomeDood wrote:
For the A345, a 77L has similar cabin floor area (both ~285m^2), has similar-ish payload-range, and is 25tons lighter OEW, i.e it's basically a better plane for the few ULR routes that need the capabilities. For those who don't, a 77E or A330 just made more sense for similar capacity, hence, low sales for both models.

For the A346, a 77W has more cabin floor area (~325 vs ~345m^2), still has similar payload-range, and is 10tons lighter OEW, which basically makes it a cheaper bird to run for 95% of operators.

The fact that 10-abreast started catching on in the 777s basically means that the floor area of the 777 can be utilized more densely and efficiently than the 8-abreast from the A330/340 fuselage.
but a330/340 can be nine abreast. Think that's only way you can get 475 seats on a 346.

So if an operator were to get a 345/6 for very little, they could fly long missions much longer than a 330 relatively cheaply.
Could vs eg. do lhr/per nonstop with a 345 or 346 in opposition to new qf route starting this month ? They could link up with va at per & give qf a run for their money.

“Relatively cheaply” if you only look at acquisition costs. QF would eat VS alive if they attempted something like that. The 789 that QF is running would burn far far far less fuel. 787 maintenance costs would likely be cheaper too. Remember that VS has 789s as well.

The A345/A346’s relative fuel inefficiency compared to the 77W, let alone even newer jets like the A350 or 787, means that is more painful to use them on longer flights. That is where fuel efficiency really starts to matter. Shorter flights can be operated by far more efficient equipment. Longer flight can be operated by more efficient equipment. The only place the A340NG excels is in hot and high markets, which is niche. Which is why most operators have or are in the process of dumping their fleets rather than find a role for the aircraft until the end of typical aircraft life.


What people don't realise is that PER-LHR is payload restricted west bound on the QF Dreamliner, to the tune of about 40 seats needing to be blocked.

So although the Dreamliner is a superb and very efficient aircraft it still can't do PER-LHR year round without payload restrictions at this point in it's career.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:43 am

JustSomeDood wrote:
Unlike Airbus, which built a plane so unattractive, that they had to effectively incorporate put options with the plane to sell, the effects of which can still be seen on the balance sheet and bite Airbus in the ass should the airlines exercise such options. :roll:

The commercial aviation industry is catching up with the vehicle leasing and rental industries, where buybacks are common. Only if the hours, cycles, ages and values scenarios are disclosed, can we ascertain the attractiveness (or otherwise) of the buybacks. As disclosure of those terms invalidates the buyback we don't know / can't say.

Unless we have knowledge of the total package, including cradle to grave incentives, it's impossible to be sure how good a deal has been made.

History tends to repeat, so we shouldn't gloat. Will the 777X lives up to it's weight and performance guarantees?
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 10310
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:30 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
Polot wrote:
Even if Boeing increased performance to beat the earlier A340NG who cares? That is one of the disadvantages of being the first mover. The competition knows what the benchmark is. You think Airbus didn’t look closely at the 777/787 specs when it came time to define the A350?


They didn't didn't listen well enough. They needed Udvar-Hazy to push them into the XWB format.

He credited the president of the company's "number one customer" - Steve Udvar-Hazy of International Lease Finance - for finally pushing Airbus to design a truly competitive rival to the 787. "Steve Hazy told us 'don't run for the silver medal when you able to run for the gold - give me an aircraft that is ahead of the present standard of the industry'."

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... or-208045/

But yes, your benchmarking reference is a good one. 'They could have done better with more time' is a weak argument. Airbus chose the timeline and features for the failed A340-500/600.


Personally I think the original A350, basically an A330neo+, would have sold quite well and been worth it, allowing to make the A350WXB bigger (which they did anyway, since the A358 seems dead).
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 8422
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:40 pm

Aesma wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
Polot wrote:
Even if Boeing increased performance to beat the earlier A340NG who cares? That is one of the disadvantages of being the first mover. The competition knows what the benchmark is. You think Airbus didn’t look closely at the 777/787 specs when it came time to define the A350?


They didn't didn't listen well enough. They needed Udvar-Hazy to push them into the XWB format.

He credited the president of the company's "number one customer" - Steve Udvar-Hazy of International Lease Finance - for finally pushing Airbus to design a truly competitive rival to the 787. "Steve Hazy told us 'don't run for the silver medal when you able to run for the gold - give me an aircraft that is ahead of the present standard of the industry'."

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... or-208045/

But yes, your benchmarking reference is a good one. 'They could have done better with more time' is a weak argument. Airbus chose the timeline and features for the failed A340-500/600.


Personally I think the original A350, basically an A330neo+, would have sold quite well and been worth it, allowing to make the A350WXB bigger (which they did anyway, since the A358 seems dead).

The biggest issue is keeping the original A350 would have sucked too much engineering resources and further delayed the A350XWB (A360? in this scenario). Airbus desperately needed a solid response to the 777 asap.

The original A350 also would have likely been another rough EIS for Airbus because of the engines, which was not something they needed after the rough A340NG, A380, and A400M intros. No way GE would have met specs in ~2008 for the A350 when they were off so much for both the 787 and 747-8 (which uses a very similar engine to what would have been on the A350).
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3436
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 4:36 pm

WIederling wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
In short, every important performance measure was better than predicted for the 773ER and its market success was the result. Nothing was changed due to the A346 EIS date.


color me unimpressed.
Why was the GE90-115 a maintenance hog and a massive NOx polluter early on?
My guess would be from raising some performance parameters for that little bit of extra.


You're obviously a hard man to impress. The 773ER has over an 8:1 (and still growing) sales advantage compared to the A346.

And as Stitch said, the GE90-115B was/is not a maintenance hog and it was not a massive NOx polluter, being under required levels.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25579
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 5:11 pm

Pacific wrote:
Don't think anybody in the right mind predicted the 777-300ER to beat promise by 10%. This 10% free performance killed the A340NG.


Pretty sure it was not 10% - a miss like that, even a positive one, would be a sign Boeing's engineers really stuffed it. Doubly so since they were revising an pre-existing design. I believe the actual figure was closer to 2% and Boeing and GE have subsequently improved it by another 3% on current builds via airframe and engine PiPs.

What hurt the A340-600 was it burned over 10% more fuel (per Airbus' statements) and the engine maintenance was more expensive. The A340-600 had the better (freight) payload performance on most routes, but that advantage didn't cover the extra fuel and maintenance costs so airlines quickly shifted to the 777-300ER unless they needed the (field) performance of the A340-600.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3436
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:05 pm

Your analysis is correct Stitch, in both regard to the initial favorable test and EIS fuel burn increments and the subsequent airframe and engine PIP's.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
Strato2
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:43 pm

Planesmart wrote:
[Most 600 customers were offered three options - retrospective buybacks, compensation, no cost HGW replacement. Some selected more than one.

RR recently offered more attractive low use PBTH terms and pricing which might see the A340 live on a little longer for executive, government and ad hoc charter.


Source?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25579
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:03 pm

Strato2 wrote:
Planesmart wrote:
[Most 600 customers were offered three options - retrospective buybacks, compensation, no cost HGW replacement. Some selected more than one.

RR recently offered more attractive low use PBTH terms and pricing which might see the A340 live on a little longer for executive, government and ad hoc charter.


Source?


Airbus and Rolls unveil plan to restore A340-600 appeal
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... al-393844/

Airbus to Customers: Your $200 Million Plane Is Not a Lemon / Airbus's Guarantee to A340 Buyers Could Cost It $2 Billion
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... t-billions

For Airbus and Bankers, Big A340s Pose Sizable Risks
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424 ... 0750306548
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 1822
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:13 pm

JamesCousins wrote:
Aesma wrote:
For some routes with hot and high issues, and low utilization of aircraft, I'm sure they still make sense, especially bought cheap.


Iberia is a prime example, they aren't retiring many of theirs for years yet...


Given that IB flies to many hot and high airfields, why aren’t they a candidate for secondhand A346s?
 
WIederling
Posts: 6332
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:53 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
Given that IB flies to many hot and high airfields, why aren’t they a candidate for secondhand A346s?


they have sufficient first hand samples?
Murphy is an optimist
 
JamesCousins
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:56 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
JamesCousins wrote:
Aesma wrote:
For some routes with hot and high issues, and low utilization of aircraft, I'm sure they still make sense, especially bought cheap.


Iberia is a prime example, they aren't retiring many of theirs for years yet...


Given that IB flies to many hot and high airfields, why aren’t they a candidate for secondhand A346s?


Because they have the A350 coming it, which should take over (theoretically). I also see IB a prime candidate in a future IAG 380 order, providing they can agree with Airbus on pricing...
A320-200, A321-200, 737-500, 737-800, 747-400, 757-200, 787-9
 
Pacific
Posts: 1113
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

Re: Why are relatively new a340-500s& -600s being sold off cheaply ?

Wed Mar 14, 2018 9:41 am

Stitch wrote:
Pacific wrote:
Don't think anybody in the right mind predicted the 777-300ER to beat promise by 10%. This 10% free performance killed the A340NG.


Pretty sure it was not 10% - a miss like that, even a positive one, would be a sign Boeing's engineers really stuffed it. Doubly so since they were revising an pre-existing design. I believe the actual figure was closer to 2% and Boeing and GE have subsequently improved it by another 3% on current builds via airframe and engine PiPs.

What hurt the A340-600 was it burned over 10% more fuel (per Airbus' statements) and the engine maintenance was more expensive. The A340-600 had the better (freight) payload performance on most routes, but that advantage didn't cover the extra fuel and maintenance costs so airlines quickly shifted to the 777-300ER unless they needed the (field) performance of the A340-600.


The A340NG were definitely grossly overweight, which of course translates to poor fuel burn.

However, Boeing found extra margin to increase the range of the 77W late in the flight test program. 13,280km was the original conceived range, which quickly turned to 14,250, then even slightly further, before Boeing changed their calculation methods over 10 years later and reduced spec range.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ht-174846/

At the original conceived range, the A340NG had a range advantage of over 1,000km. However, the ease at which the 77W range grew so quickly to match the A340NG quickly diminished the prospects of the A340. Just think of all the 77Ws being used on 14+ hour flights - the original would not be able to do this and this was supposed to be the advantage of the A340NG.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos