san747
Posts: 4344
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:03 am

Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Mon Feb 07, 2005 7:26 am

I've been wondering for a while, why was the A340-200 never really a high-selling aircraft, unlike the -300,-500, and -600. It is some ways was better in performance than those other types, but I guess it was like the 736 and A318, too small to be efficient?

Thanks,
Alex
Scotty doesn't know...
 
aerlingus330
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 2:21 am

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Mon Feb 07, 2005 7:33 am

Its probley because its just an A330 with 2 more engines. The A340-200 is nearly the same length and can carry the same passengers.

aerlingus330
Aer Lingus Airbus A330-300
 
FriendlySkies
Posts: 3540
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:57 pm

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Mon Feb 07, 2005 7:33 am

Simple. The plane sucked so badly that Airbus had to come out with the -300 right away.
 
PH-BFA
Posts: 444
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2002 6:22 pm

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Mon Feb 07, 2005 7:39 am

'Simple. The plane sucked so badly that Airbus had to come out with the -300 right away.'

Ah ok, thanks for this 'useful' explanation.

PH-BFA
 
FriendlySkies
Posts: 3540
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:57 pm

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Mon Feb 07, 2005 7:45 am

PH-BFA:

Ok, it might not be the most "useful" explanation, but it's true. The A342 didn't meet many design expectations, is only an A330 with two more engines, and had horrible range (except for that one -8000 variant). Airbus saw this, and quickly offered the -300 instead. It's nearly the same size, but is a better performer. That, combined with the 777, killed the A342.
 
SDLSimme
Posts: 466
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 9:44 pm

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Mon Feb 07, 2005 7:50 am

What is the difference between the 343 and the 333? Wouldn't the 343 just be a 333 with two more engines or does it have better range or fuel efficiency than the 333?
A319-A321, A332-A333, RJ85, B733-B738, B743-B744, B752, B762-B764, B772-B773, CRJ200-CRJ700, Dash 8 Q300-Q400, ERJ 145,
 
Scorpio
Posts: 4767
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Mon Feb 07, 2005 7:50 am

Ok, it might not be the most "useful" explanation, but it's true.

No it's not. Bit of a hint: before you come on here and try to lecture people on such subject matter, try and do some research first. I'll set you on your way and tell you there are AT LEAST 2 SERIOUS mistakes in your explanation, that pretty much kill your argument.

Edit: make that three...

[Edited 2005-02-06 23:56:18]
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Mon Feb 07, 2005 8:26 am

Ok, it might not be the most "useful" explanation, but it's true.

Almost, but not quite.

Yes, it sucked, no doubt there. But what mattered more to the airlines was that the A340-311 had better CASM, and the A340-313X had better range on top of that.

As a result, the A342 was relegated to obsolete status.




the A340-200 never really a high-selling aircraft, unlike the -300,-500, and -600.

...um, niche aircraft though it is; the -500 has sold less (in its 8th year post-launch) than the A342 did. Not exactly a "high-selling aircraft", don't ya think?  Big grin
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Mon Feb 07, 2005 8:30 am

>What is the difference between the 343 and the 333? Wouldn't the 343 just be a 333 with two more engines or does it have better range or fuel efficiency than the 333?<

The 333 is more fuel efficient and has 2 fewer engines so less to maintain. The 343 has longer range

>The A342 didn't meet many design expectations, is only an A330 with two more engines, and had horrible range (except for that one -8000 variant).<

Well, the range is ok, just not nearly what they said. Also, the -8000 plane is a private jet so I don't see how that counts
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
ViveLeYHZ
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 5:10 pm

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:16 am

What is the difference between the 343 and the 333? Wouldn't the 343 just be a 333 with two more engines or does it have better range or fuel efficiency than the 333?

You're kidding, right ???????? Of course it has to have a higher range, otherwise what's the point of the two extra engines. Here is the difference:

AC 333 (330-300): 274 pax, 5600 nm
AC 343 (340-300): 282 pax, 7750 nm
AC 345 (340-500): 267 pax, 9000 nm

Cheers,
ViveLeYHZ
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Mon Feb 07, 2005 12:13 pm

From what I've heard and read, the A340-200 came up short because Pratt failed to come through with the so-called "superfan" engine. If the superfan had worked, the A340 would have be great.
 
Carpethead
Posts: 2563
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 8:15 pm

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Mon Feb 07, 2005 12:25 pm

AC carries more pax in the A343 than A333. Is that right? Usually its the other way around for most carriers.

There is a similar aircraft that can carry more pax, payload, and go further. A343E vs. A342.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Mon Feb 07, 2005 12:30 pm

>From what I've heard and read, the A340-200 came up short because Pratt failed to come through with the so-called "superfan" engine. If the superfan had worked, the A340 would have be great.<

Actually, that would be IAE (Pratt and RR).
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
CPDC10-30
Posts: 4681
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 4:30 pm

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Mon Feb 07, 2005 12:48 pm

AC 343 (340-300): 282 pax, 7750 nm

If those figures were true, AC would never have problems DEL-YYZ, a ~6300nm route. But they have made fuel stops. I think the figures you are referring to are max fuel range...not with a decent payload.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Mon Feb 07, 2005 12:57 pm

Um, according to Airbus, the still air/no cargo range of the A343 is 7400nm, not 7750.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
LVZXV
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 10:03 am

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:52 am

I'm inclined to agree that "sucked" was a poor choice of words.

I'm not sure if they are the sole exception, but in AR's case, although their -300 deal fell-through, the -200 worked out better, and is employed on flights of near 14-hour duration such as EZE-AKL and EZE-FCO. In a 249-seat configuration, they are capable of flying 14,600km, i.e. more than an A343 or a B742. It was all Airbus could offer back in 1999 when no other product of theirs' was capable of covering such distances until the advent of the A345, which even now is not affordable to most (if not all) Latin American carriers. That said, if funds permitted, AR would have almost certainly chosen the -500 instead.

Like the B747-SP and numerous other types, I think demand was limited and it's not a big surprise so few were sold, although this is easier to say with the benefit of hindsight (I doubt Airbus envisaged such an outcome at the time). By no means does this imply the aircraft "sucked", however.

Regards,

ZXV

How do you say "12 months" in Estonian?
 
SDLSimme
Posts: 466
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 9:44 pm

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Tue Feb 08, 2005 3:39 am

>You're kidding, right ???????? Of course it has to have a higher range, otherwise what's the point of the two extra engines.<

No, I'm not kidding, and I'm sorry if you feel disturbed by the fact that I'm a new member here and don't know as much as many other people here about all the technical details of all the types of aircraft out there. That being said, 4 engines doesn't always have to mean longer range does it? The 772LR only has two engines as far as I'm concerned and it has got quite some range  Big grin

Thanks though for informing me about the differences. After all, that's why i hang out here. To learn more about my hobby  Smile
A319-A321, A332-A333, RJ85, B733-B738, B743-B744, B752, B762-B764, B772-B773, CRJ200-CRJ700, Dash 8 Q300-Q400, ERJ 145,
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Tue Feb 08, 2005 3:53 am

These A vs. A wars are such a refreshing change from the usual A vs. B wars.

Carry on, I'm quite entertained.  Smile

(Welcome to a.net, SDLSimme, and you're quite right, 4 engines don't necessarily mean 4 longer range any longer.)
International Homo of Mystery
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Tue Feb 08, 2005 4:41 am

AC 343 (340-300): 282 pax, 7750 nm

I have no idea from whence you derived this range figure, but it aint accurate.




AC 345 (340-500): 267 pax, 9000 nm

AC's A345s don't have anywhere near this range, neither do SQ/EK's.

The MTOW fortifications which [allegedly] will grant that level or range wasn't available when these aircraft were delivered.



It was all Airbus could offer back in 1999 when no other product of theirs' was capable of covering such distances until the advent of the A345

That said, if funds permitted, AR would have almost certainly chosen the -500 instead.


Dude, check your facts.... both of these statements couldn't be further from the truth.  Nuts

First of all, the A345 was available for purchase since 1997.
Secondly, Aerolineas looked at the A345 that year (1999), and instead chose to order the A346.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
LVZXV
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 10:03 am

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Tue Feb 08, 2005 4:59 am

Concordeboy:

Let me put it more clearly:

In 1999, the A342 was the only ultra-long range model Airbus had readily available--remember these aircraft were acquired third-hand on lease.

And yes, AR did order the A346 in 1999 (6 of them), and but for the ensuing drama of 2001-2, AR would be happily flying the first 3 of them by now. However, in the remote chance that the outstanding order ("indefinitely postponed" at present) is not cancelled, it seems AR would prefer the -500 model over the -600, as the order can still be converted. For now though, AR has to make do with former Canadian B744s instead, although there is talk of leasing 2 or 3 more A342/3s in the near future...

That is all!

Regards,

ZXV

How do you say "12 months" in Estonian?
 
burberry753
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 6:15 am

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Tue Feb 08, 2005 5:16 am

The A342 range cant be too bad, dont South African use them on their Cape Town-Heathrow services?
 
ViveLeYHZ
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 5:10 pm

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Tue Feb 08, 2005 6:27 am

ConcordeBoy, and CPDC10-30,

The figures come straight from AC's website. I didn't want to use A.net's (or even Airbus) figures, because these two sources would give you a range of values for the aircraft's range, which depends on (among other things) the actual seating capacity of the aircraft.

Here are the figures for A345 from three sources, and you guys pick the one you like:

A.net: 317 pax, 8500 nm (source).
Airbus.com: 313 pax, 9000 nm (about 9800 nm with zero pax). (source).
aircanada.ca: 267 pax, 8976 nm.

The AC fleet stats are found here:
Air Canada 340-500
Air Canada 340-300
Air Canada 330-300

Cheers,
ViveLeYHZ
 
OHLBU
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:35 am

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Tue Feb 08, 2005 6:53 am

I happen to have the book "Airbus A340 and A330" by Guy Norris and Mark Wagner, dating from 2001, which gives the following specifications for max range:

A332 6475nm
A333 4750nm
A342 8000nm
A343 7300nm
A345 8500nm
A346 7500nm

As they are "max range" my guess is that they are with max fuel, not max payload, unfortunately that is not mentioned in the book. And most probably the figures for A342/343 are with aux center tanks. But these max ranges never tell the operational truth, as few airlines buy planes to fly them until the fuel ends. Instead they buy an aircraft which can fly the routes they are planning to fly with max pax and cargo load. Well, with the exception of at least SQ currently, as their primary motive to order the A345 was to fly some routes nonstop with max fuel in far-from-cramped configuration.

BTW, Finnair almost ordered the A340 in the late ´80s but made a last-minute switch to the MD11 after Airbus replaced the planned IAE SuperFan engine with CFM56.
 
anxebla
Posts: 1696
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 8:31 am

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Tue Feb 08, 2005 6:57 am

LVZXV... Really do you think AR can need the A345 range?? On what routes are you thinking?

P.D.- Don't trust too much in Gonzalo Pascual... he's the world's "más raro" airline CEO
AIRBUS 320 The world's most advanced single-aisle aircraft
 
Adria
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 7:53 am

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Tue Feb 08, 2005 7:11 am

"the -500 has sold less (in its 8th year post-launch) than the A342 did. Not exactly a "high-selling aircraft", don't ya think? " but the number is still higher that that of the competing aircraft Smile
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Tue Feb 08, 2005 7:14 am

dating from 2001

Keep in mind that the A340"NGs" hadn't even completed their testing/certification at that time... the figures were speculative only.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
PyroGX41487
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 3:06 am

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Tue Feb 08, 2005 7:31 am

Aye. The only reason the SQ A340-500s can make that 9,000 NM + journey to EWR from SIN is due to the fact that they carry 181 pax, where the standard seating for the A345 is around 313. Not to mention, theres also a major payload/cargo penalty too.

As for the A340-200, I never really knew too much about the aircraft. I always thought it was sorta pointless to have a four engined plane the length of the A330-200... sorta like strapping two extra engines to a 767 and giving it 7,100 nm range.

AC's A343 used to be able to make Vancouver - Kai Tak (And now, Chep Lap Kok, sadly [You're looking at a Kai Tak fanboy here]) with (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) minimal payload restrictions.

... 8,000 nm range for the A340-200? Is that figure really accurate? Yikes.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7426
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Tue Feb 08, 2005 7:40 am


So what are the differences between the A340-200 and A340-300.

Is it possible to convert an A340-200 to an A340-300.
 
PyroGX41487
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 3:06 am

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Tue Feb 08, 2005 7:58 am

So what are the differences between the A340-200 and A340-300.

Is it possible to convert an A340-200 to an A340-300.



No, see, the A340-200 uses the A330-200 fusulage, and the A340-300 uses the A330-300 fusulage. The only differences are MTOW, gear, engines, pax loads, length and a few other things.

So the answer to that question would be no.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:12 am

that 9,000 NM + journey to EWR from SIN

Careful with that.

Though the still air might approach the distance you described, EWR-SIN isn't even 8300nm in terms of actual distance... not much more even when flown "the long way".




8,000 nm range for the A340-200? Is that figure really accurate?

Not really.

Only one A342 ever had that range, and it never entered commercial service.
It was originally designated "A340-8000", and later A340-213X.

This is not to be confused with AR's A340-213X (formerly designated -211) that received PIPs granting longer range and better fuel burn... but not 8000nm range however.


the A340-200 uses the A330-200 fusulage

Again, not really. The A342 and A332 fuselages are of different lengths, but same general composition.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
trex8
Posts: 4577
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:26 am

The A342 is about 0.5m longer than the A332, anyone know why??
 
LVZXV
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 10:03 am

RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:33 am

ConcordeBoy:

There are mixed reports about AR's A342s. It is true that on the database, several pictures are labelled "A340-213X", but whether or not they were converted, they are generally referred to as standard "A340-211"s back at home. 2 things do draw my attention, however:

  • On AR's website, the A340-200 is advertised as boasting a 14,600km range, which does support the claim that they have been converted to -213X models.


  • However, how much would the conversions have cost for the entire fleet of four aircraft, when were they carried out, and were they worthwhile granted that the longest non-stop service operated by AR is EZE-FCO (11,035km)? Even CDG, which was briefly operated by the A342s in 1999/2000 was scarcely 100km more than FCO, and AKL is much less.


  • On the other hand, 14 hour sectors do sound much for your average A340, so perhaps the fuel-burn on the EZE-AKL and EZE-FCO is such that it merited the installation of additional fuel-tanks for the aircraft.

    Pyro:

    As for the A340-200, I never really knew too much about the aircraft. I always thought it was sorta pointless to have a four engined plane the length of the A330-200... sorta like strapping two extra engines to a 767 and giving it 7,100 nm range.

    I think you'll find that the A342 entered service 6 years before the A332, so it is not a simple case of "strapping two extra engines" to an A330 in this case. The A330 and A340 are in any case unique in that they are virtually the same airframes just with a different number of engines (of course the A345/6 is something else...). Henceforth, sales of the two aircraft look more impressive when combined rather than viewed separately, in a similar way to the B757 and B767.

    Anxebla:

    Que tal? Well, the A345 won't be needed in the short term due to the B744s, but in theory, AR planned to operate such an aircraft to Australasia, East Asia, and among some of their wilder dreams, Dubai and the Mediterranean. As I'm sure you've seen though, Mata has said his fair share of "boludeses" since he took over AR, among them have been many of his proposed new destinations (ATH, BEY, CAI, DXB, IST, NRT, PEK, PVG, SVO, TUN). In any case, he is not in favour of the A345/6 (ordered under SEPI administration), but realises that it is wiser to "indefinitely postpone" the existing order than to officially cancel. Veremos...

    Regards/Saludos,

    ZXV

    How do you say "12 months" in Estonian?
     
    N1120A
    Posts: 26467
    Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

    RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

    Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:42 am

    >The A342 range cant be too bad, dont South African use them on their Cape Town-Heathrow services?<

    You could fly that route with a 767, it is only 5209 nm

    >and is employed on flights of near 14-hour duration such as EZE-AKL and EZE-FCO.<

    Um, EZE-AKL is less than 5600nm, that is not a 14 hour flight and something their 742s could have done. It is more a matter of purchase cost and how much plane they could fill
    Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
     
    727LOVER
    Posts: 6602
    Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

    RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

    Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:48 am

    OK, so I'm curious...

    How many of each have been delivered and are on FIRM order?
     Confused

    332
    333
    342
    343
    345
    346


    And just for comparison:

    772 all versions
    773 all versions
    764 all versions





    Answers?  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
    I feel woozy....what did you put in that Pudding Pop?
     
    san747
    Posts: 4344
    Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:03 am

    RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

    Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:55 am

    Has the A345 garnered less orders than the A342? Off the top of my head, airlines that have or will have A345s are:

    SQ
    TG
    QR
    EK
    AC

    Fill me in about operators of the A342, but this is my list off the top of my head (includes former operators):

    LH
    Royal Jordanian
    AR
    SA
    Egypt Air
    Sabena

    Feel free to correct me on any of this data...
    Scotty doesn't know...
     
    ConcordeBoy
    Posts: 16852
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

    RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

    Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:22 am

    Has the A345 garnered less orders than the A342?

    Yes.


    Also, SA never ordered A342.
    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    trex8
    Posts: 4577
    Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

    RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

    Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:25 am

    AF was an original customer
     
    Rj111
    Posts: 3007
    Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

    RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

    Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:36 pm

    The A342 has so few orders because his bigger brother, the A343X, weighs a mere ton more but has loads more room for freight and pax.

    The 333 is more fuel efficient and has 2 fewer engines so less to maintain. The 343 has longer range

    They say the A343 is more efficient 4000nm+.  Confused
     
    ViveLeYHZ
    Posts: 188
    Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 5:10 pm

    RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

    Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:41 pm

    Is AC still the only carrier in North America with A345s ? all two of them that they have ?

    Since we're talking about the "longest range aircraft in the world" today, the A345, do you guys see an aircraft in the near future that can do NYC-SYD or even LHR-SYD non-stop ? I am not sure what the distance is on this route, nor how long it would take, but I imagine there is enough demand for one daily by Qantas.

    LHR-SYD non-stop; very far fetched ?? Any thoughts ?

    Cheers,
    ViveLeYHZ
     
    N1120A
    Posts: 26467
    Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

    RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

    Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:53 pm

    >The 333 is more fuel efficient and has 2 fewer engines so less to maintain. The 343 has longer range

    They say the A343 is more efficient 4000nm+.<

    The 333 has to take restrictions once you start hitting certain stage lengths.

    >Is AC still the only carrier in North America with A345s ? all two of them that they have ?<

    They are the only carrier in NA with the A340, period.


    >Since we're talking about the "longest range aircraft in the world" today, the A345, do you guys see an aircraft in the near future that can do NYC-SYD or even LHR-SYD non-stop ?<

    The 772LR should be able to do NYC-SYD with moderate restriction. LHR-SYD would be possible, SYD-LHR would be more the issue

    Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
     
    CPDC10-30
    Posts: 4681
    Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 4:30 pm

    RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

    Tue Feb 08, 2005 1:53 pm

    ViveLeYHZ, AC is quoting their range in statute miles, not nautical miles.

     
    ViveLeYHZ
    Posts: 188
    Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 5:10 pm

    RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

    Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:56 pm

    CPDC10-30,

    I didn't know that, and I don't know the difference between the two. I will do a quick google search to find the difference. What about A.net and Airbus ?

    Thanks for the pointer.

    Cheers,
    ViveLeYHZ
     
    eg777er
    Posts: 1782
    Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

    RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

    Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:15 pm

    The way I understand it, almost as soon as the A340-200 entered service, Airbus announced the A340-313X which can carry many more people the same distance.

    Also, didn't an A340-200 fly Orly - Auckland - Orly once?
     
    LVZXV
    Posts: 1729
    Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 10:03 am

    RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

    Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:26 pm

    N1120A:

    Um, EZE-AKL is less than 5600nm, that is not a 14 hour flight and something their 742s could have done. It is more a matter of purchase cost and how much plane they could fill

    I think head-winds are a problem on the westbound flight (EZE-AKL). As you may remember, the B742 always had to make a "technical stop" for fuel at RGL (Rio Gallegos) on the outbound but never on the return leg. On AR's schedules, it shows a 2 hour difference in flight duration between EZE-AKL and AKL-EZE.

    EZE-AKL: 13h50mins
    AKL-EZE: 11h50mins

    Granted, you can cut 20 mins of ground time for both, but it's the same distance (and the A342 is noticeably slower than say a B744).

    My point is that we are well aware that the distance between EZE and AKL is well within the A342's certified range, it's just the winds and even the routing that prolongs the flight duration and hence the fuel-burn (incidentally, the routing shown by the Great Circle Mapper is not always the one taken; I've seen the AKL-bound A342 cruising overhead when I was working in Tierra del Fuego).

    Regards,

    ZXV

    How do you say "12 months" in Estonian?
     
    zvezda
    Posts: 8891
    Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

    RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

    Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:42 pm

    The B777-200LR will be able to fly LHR-SYD nonstop with plenty of cargo. It will be able to return SYD-LHR but depending on the weather will be payload limited. Just how payload limited we'll see after they start flying. The route may or may not be commercially viable. I think it will be but some very smart folks here disagree.
     
    Udo
    Posts: 4288
    Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

    RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

    Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:57 pm

    The B777-200LR will be able to fly LHR-SYD nonstop with plenty of cargo.

    Even the LHR-SYD sector would be limited.


    It will be able to return SYD-LHR but depending on the weather will be payload limited.

    It would ALWAYS be payload limited. And forget cargo at all.


    Just how payload limited we'll see after they start flying.

    Boeing might be able to improve performance a bit, but not as much as needed for that route.


    The route may or may not be commercially viable.

    That's it. Why should BA or QF purchase a premium prized aircraft, just to be able to fly a limited amount of premium seats and without cargo on a route which would ALWAYS require a stop westbound?  Yeah sure


    I think it will be but some very smart folks here disagree.

    Then try to get a job at QF management soon - they probably just wait for you!  Wink/being sarcastic



    Regards
    Udo
    Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
     
    ktachiya
    Posts: 1500
    Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 5:54 am

    RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:46 am

    San747

    Doesn't Sri Lankan and Austrian also come into that list?
    Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
     
    ConcordeBoy
    Posts: 16852
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

    RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:07 am

    I didn't know that, and I don't know the difference between the two.

    1 nautical mile = 1.1507794 statute ("real") miles
    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    san747
    Posts: 4344
    Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:03 am

    RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:55 am

    San747

    Doesn't Sri Lankan and Austrian also come into that list?


    Can't believe I forgot Austrian! Duh... Not sure about Sri Lankan though.


    ConcordeBoy:

    Also, SA never ordered A342.

    Is that true? Where did SA acquire their A342s from?

    Thanks,
    Alex
    Scotty doesn't know...
     
    ConcordeBoy
    Posts: 16852
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

    RE: Why So Few A340-200 Orders?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 12:16 pm

    Where did SA acquire their A342s from?

    LH
    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!