bjornstrom
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 1:54 am

Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Fri Nov 25, 2005 5:28 pm

DFWrevolution wrote:
"Over a decade ago Airbus missed their A342/A343 sales expectations big time, how often do we hear about that? We don't hear much about the A340's profitability or the fact that 1/3 of the A388 backlog rest with a single carrier."

- Whats the story about the Airbus 340 failure?
- I have heard about SQ returning their 340's - is this true?
Eurobonus Gold | BMI Gold | http://my.flightmemory.com/bjornstrom/
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9853
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:20 pm

Quoting Bjornstrom (Thread starter):
I have heard about SQ returning their 340's - is this true?

It has been said that when SQ order the B772LR then the A345s will be on the chopping board, as what happened with SQs A343, when SQ ordered more B772ERs and Boeing purchased the A343s off SQ.
 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:31 pm

Quoting Bjornstrom (Thread starter):
We don't hear much about the A340's profitability or the fact that 1/3 of the A388 backlog rest with a single carrier."

It's actually nearer to 1/4. And even so, that isn't necesarilly a bad thing, seeing how well EK performs and grows. It would be more worrysome if these 43 A380 were ordered by one of the bankrupt US carriers.
SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
 
teva
Posts: 1764
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 12:31 am

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:50 pm

Don't forget A340 and A330 are 1 aircraft. The idea was to offer choice to the airlines at the time they were hesitating between 2 and 4 engines.
The A330 started very slowly. luckily, the 340 was there. Now, it is just the opposite.
But for Airbus, the only important point is the succes of the line.
Teva
Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
 
EI747SYDNEY
Posts: 686
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:28 pm

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:59 pm

Is the A350 a more improved variant of the A330/340 or is it acompletly different aircraft?

Rob  wave 
''Live life on the edge, Live each and every day like it's your last, Hell you only live once''
 
jush
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:10 am

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Fri Nov 25, 2005 7:00 pm

Panam bought a lot of the first 747s was that a bad thing? NO
It isn't here either.
There is one problem with airbus. Though their products are engineering marvels they lack passion, completely.
 
trex8
Posts: 4576
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Fri Nov 25, 2005 8:50 pm

Quoting Bjornstrom (Thread starter):
"Over a decade ago Airbus missed their A342/A343 sales expectations big time, how often do we hear about that? We don't hear much about the A340's profitability or the fact that 1/3 of the A388 backlog rest with a single carrier."

- Whats the story about the Airbus 340 failure?
- I have heard about SQ returning their 340's - is this true?

well firstly, the supposition is stretching it a little
http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/2280209

SQ traded all their A343s to Boeing and they are leased to Emirates, Gulf, Cathay and China Airlines. There are RUMORS that they may eventually get rid of their A345s.

[Edited 2005-11-25 12:54:11]
 
trex8
Posts: 4576
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Fri Nov 25, 2005 9:03 pm

Quoting EI747SYDNEY (Reply 4):
Is the A350 a more improved variant of the A330/340 or is it acompletly different aircraft?

take the basic A330 design, put a new wing on it, use new materials for construction throughout, put a bleed air version of the new generation engines from the 787 on it and some new A380 cockpit tech and you have a A350.
 
Maersk737
Posts: 654
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:37 am

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Fri Nov 25, 2005 10:15 pm

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 7):
take the basic A330 design, put a new wing on it, use new materials for construction throughout, put a bleed air version of the new generation engines from the 787 on it and some new A380 cockpit tech and you have a A350.

Simple and easy  Wink

Cheers

Peter
I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Fri Nov 25, 2005 10:50 pm

Is the A350 a more improved variant of the A330/340 or is it a completely different aircraft?

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 7):

take the basic A330 design, put a new wing on it, use new materials for construction throughout, put a bleed air version of the new generation engines from the 787 on it and some new A380 cockpit tech and you have a A350.

In other words, it's a completely different aircraft.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5179
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Fri Nov 25, 2005 11:22 pm

Talking about the "failure" of the A340 without considering the whole program (A34X/A33X) is like taking about the failure of the B764 without considering the rest of the (very successful) B767 family !

The A330/A340 program is already almost 20 years old ...(launched in 1986).
The first commercial flight being operated by AF and LH early 1993.

When the first orders were placed by Airlines, the choice for Long-haul equipment was not very big : B747 or B767 ... eventually the MD11 for airlines already operating the DC-10.
Moreover, the A340 was the very first 4 engines long haul airliner designed by Airbus who did not have any experience of long-haul a/c at that time.

The A340 (and later A330) was prefered to the MD11 by many airlines, including some already operating DC10 (Iberia, Sabena, LH ). And those who picked up the MD 11 replaced it later by A340/A330 (Swissair, Thaï).

I am a big fan of the A330/A340 but I think Airbus underestimated Boeing's B777 and should not have launched the A345/A346, but should have pushed instead for a brand new twin engine (ultra) Long Haul airliner just like Boeing did.

Whether we like it or not, and except for the >550 PAX carriers, the present & the future belong to twin engines aircraft, even for ultra long range aircraft.
 
EI747SYDNEY
Posts: 686
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:28 pm

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Fri Nov 25, 2005 11:31 pm

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 7):
take the basic A330 design, put a new wing on it, use new materials for construction throughout, put a bleed air version of the new generation engines from the 787 on it and some new A380 cockpit tech and you have a A350.

Thanks mate, I knew it was a similar aircraft.

Rob  wave 
''Live life on the edge, Live each and every day like it's your last, Hell you only live once''
 
krisyyz
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:04 pm

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:25 am

I wouldn't say that the A340 is a failure, but I wouldn't label it a huge success. Look at AC, its getting rid of its relatively new Airbus A340/A330 fleet in favour of the big Boeing twins. When the A340 was developed fuel prices and airline phylosophy was way different. 4 engines meant that airlines could fly avoiding ETOPS restrictions and with more direct flights. That’s not the case anymore with planes like the B777LR/773ER that can fly basically any route with its ETOPS certification.


IMO the lack of the A340 is its 4 engine design. Giving the A340 4 low thrust, low consumption engines made it under- powered and not has economical as a 2 larger engine aircraft like the B777 or A330.

Krisyyz

[Edited 2005-11-25 16:26:38]
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 3936
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:31 am

Quoting Jush (Reply 5):
Panam bought a lot of the first 747s was that a bad thing? NO

Yes, it was actually. Too much capacity at a time when the industry was in a downturn forced losses.

Trent.
I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8538
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:40 am

Quoting Bjornstrom (Thread starter):
"Over a decade ago Airbus missed their A342/A343 sales expectations big time, how often do we hear about that? We don't hear much about the A340's profitability or the fact that 1/3 of the A388 backlog rest with a single carrier."

The original sales goal for the A342/A343 was something like 350 aircraft. As of today, the program is around 250 aircraft. That's missing a mark by quite a bit.

Fourtantly for the A340 program, this probably didn't impact Airbus cash flow or ROI because of the excellent success of the (cheap) A330-200 derrivitive.

Quoting Teva (Reply 3):
The A330 started very slowly. luckily, the 340 was there. Now, it is just the opposite.

 checkmark 

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 10):
I am a big fan of the A330/A340 but I think Airbus underestimated Boeing's B777 and should not have launched the A345/A346, but should have pushed instead for a brand new twin engine (ultra) Long Haul airliner just like Boeing did.

In all fairness, that appears like a sensible option in hindsight, but at the time, Airbus was making a very good move in launching the A340-5/6. They pushed the A340 into a class that Boeing could not respond to for several years. But when they did...

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 6):
There are RUMORS that they may eventually get rid of their A345s.

An RFP for 772LR or additional A345 isn't a rumor. Decision expected by Feb-06. Iif the 777 wins, it isn't likely the A345 would stay around for the remainder of their natural lives...

Quoting Bjornstrom (Thread starter):
- I have heard about SQ returning their 340's - is this true?

SQ was disappointed with payload/range and climb performance of the A343. SQ decided to rebid the A343 versus the 772ER, and selected the 772ER with a massive option package, including a Boeing buy-back of A343 if SQ really liked the 777. Singapore did like the 777, exercised the options and buy-back plan, and dropped A343 in favor of 777. Despite what you may hear, this is the only A340 customer ditching for the 777 to date.

For the record, I do not hate the A340. I'm simply bothered when someone sets a goal to investors, misses it by a substantial margin, and there is little accountability for said error. There's pleanty of Boeing examples and missteps as well...
 
QFA001
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 6:47 am

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:21 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14):
The original sales goal for the A342/A343 was something like 350 aircraft. As of today, the program is around 250 aircraft. That's missing a mark by quite a bit.

Forecasting is a dumb game.  Wink

In 1990, Airbus predicted sales of 858 A330-300s, 342 A340-200/300s, 550 B777s and 450 MD-11s by 2009.

In 2005, Airbus has sold to date 250 A330-300s, 244 A340-200/300s. Boeing has sold 575 B777-200/200ER/300s. MDC/Boeing built 200 MD-11s.

Ofcourse, Airbus has gone on to sell 303 A330-200s and 141 A340-500/600s; Boeing has sold 203 B777-200F/200LR/300ERs; and there are still more sales to come from both OEMs by 2009, including, ofcourse, A350s and B787s.

 airplane QFA001
 
pelican
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:51 pm

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:33 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14):
For the record, I do not hate the A340. I'm simply bothered when someone sets a goal to investors, misses it by a substantial margin, and there is little accountability for said error. There's pleanty of Boeing examples and missteps as well...

More or less I agree with you. But as long as I'm not an investor I don't care. Not my business. I mean the investors should make sure that somebody is held accountable for losses.
Unfortunately I didn't by some EADS shares. There development wasn't that bad in the past.

pelican
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:38 am

Quoting Teva (Reply 3):
Don't forget A340 and A330 are 1 aircraft. The idea was to offer choice to the airlines at the time they were hesitating between 2 and 4 engines.

That is a stretch. While they share the same wing, they are two distinct aircraft types.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14):
Despite what you may hear, this is the only A340 customer ditching for the 777 to date.

Add Austrian to the list.
 
FLYtoEGCC
Posts: 929
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:56 am

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:43 am

Quoting N79969 (Reply 17):
That is a stretch. While they share the same wing, they are two distinct aircraft types.

They are two distinct types, no question, but your statement's a little short of the full story, given that they also share the same fuselage, nose, tailplane, flight deck (apart from the obvious 2/4 engine differences) and probably a lot of internal components within the electronics, hydraulics etc.
Come fly with me, let's fly, let's fly away...
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:48 am

Quoting FLYtoEGCC (Reply 18):
They are two distinct types, no question, but your statement's a little short of the full story, given that they also share the same fuselage, nose, tailplane, flight deck (apart from the obvious 2/4 engine differences) and probably a lot of internal components within the electronics, hydraulics etc.

Also true. But A330 and A340 compete in different niches. The A330 has a superb record in its niche while the A340 does...not.

[Edited 2005-11-25 17:53:09]
 
krisyyz
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:04 pm

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:49 am

Quoting N79969 (Reply 17):
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14):
Despite what you may hear, this is the only A340 customer ditching for the 777 to date.

Add Austrian to the list

And Air Canada, I know the Airbus fleet will remain for a few more years, but the first A340 may go at the end of 2006. AC wants to go all Boeing long-haul as soon as its feasible.

Krisyyz
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5179
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:10 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14):
They pushed the A340 into a class that Boeing could not respond to for several years.

For the A346 maybe, but actually not "several" enough to make their success, especially for the A345 : the A345 started its "career" only very recently with SQ, then EK and AC ...And the B772LR is almost there already.
Unless for political reasons, I seriously doubt any airline will order the A345 now that the B772LR is available.
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:25 am

Quoting N79969 (Reply 19):
That is a stretch. While they share the same wing, they are two distinct aircraft types

May vary with engine choice but AF's A332 and A343 (both GE) have 90%+ commonality. I'd be suprised to hear they didn't have more in commen with each other than the A342/3 and A345/6. So maybe they're (A332/3 A342/3) not the same 'type' but they are definately part of the same family.


Quoting N79969 (Reply 19):
Also true. But A330 and A340 compete in different niches. The A330 has a superb record in its niche while the A340 does...not.

Much like the 772A and 772ER. The 772ER has a superb......

[Edited 2005-11-25 18:26:30]
 
vfw614
Posts: 3163
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sat Nov 26, 2005 5:00 am

Quoting N79969 (Reply 17):
Add Austrian to the list.

As I have already said in another thread....:

Austrian has been operating a mixed Boeing 777/Airbus A340 fleet since the take-over of Lauda Air. Austrian has now ordered one (!) additional Boeing 777-200ER and will phase out two Airbus A340-200 (not -300s) which have been kind of surplus since they accepted their Airbus A330-200s (which you can also tell from the fact that both go but only one Boeing 777 was ordered).

It is also helpful to have in mind that the deal for the single Boeing 777-200 included the cancellation of a Boeing 737 order. Austrian had to buy something form Boeing because it had an outstanding Boeing 737 order inherited from Lauda it wanted to cancel....
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9728
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sat Nov 26, 2005 5:48 am

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 6):
SQ traded all their A343s to Boeing and they are leased to Emirates, Gulf, Cathay and China Airlines. There are RUMORS that they may eventually get rid of their A345s.

The talk is SQ will not proceed to install a 340-500 simulator as previously planned, read into that as you will.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14):
SQ was disappointed with payload/range and climb performance of the A343. SQ decided to rebid the A343 versus the 772ER, and selected the 772ER with a massive option package, including a Boeing buy-back of A343 if SQ really liked the 777. Singapore did like the 777, exercised the options and buy-back plan, and dropped A343 in favor of 777. Despite what you may hear, this is the only A340 customer ditching for the 777 to date.

Spoken to a some of their pilots say that the early SQ 772's have struggle to do BNE-SIN with current loads, some of the older 777's would be on the list as well as the 340 fleet to be replaced with newer 777 equipment. BNE-SIN would be about 7-8 hrs.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8538
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:00 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 24):
Spoken to a some of their pilots say that the early SQ 772's have struggle to do BNE-SIN with current loads, some of the older 777's would be on the list as well as the 340 fleet to be replaced with newer 777 equipmen

Those models are paper-derated to opperate at lower performance. Every single 777-200 SQ opperates is fully capable of the maximum range/payload of the 772ER series.

BNE-SIN is well within the capability of a fully loaded 772ER.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 22):
Much like the 772A and 772ER. The 772ER has a superb......

That's a deceptive analogy, at best.
 
YULWinterSkies
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:42 pm

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:04 am

Let's not forget that the 340 was supposed to be available also with Pratt&Whitney (or IAE?) engines, that were expected to be better than the CFM56. But since that engine program failed, Airbus was left with CFM56 as their only engine supplier, which also does not help commercially since many airlines try to stick with one single engine manufacturer (BA, AF...).

And I would not call a failure an airplane which litterally caused the end of the MD11 (and the end of MDD at all!). Boeing might have somewhat killed the 340 with the 772/773ER, but they are far to have killed Airbus yet...

Quoting KrisYYZ (Reply 12):
IMO the lack of the A340 is its 4 engine design. Giving the A340 4 low thrust, low consumption engines made it under- powered and not has economical as a 2 larger engine aircraft like the B777 or A330.

Do you think that Airbus was really ignorant about the advantages of 2 engines when they developed the 340? They would have been ignorant, they would not have launched the 330. The issue then was having 2 engines + range, because the technology was not yet advanced enough. 2.5 years after the first commercial flight of the 340, the first 777 still did not have such a range. It was a 777-200A, which does not has the range of the 343. It took B 2 more years to be able to offer the 772ER, which only then beat the 340.
When I doubt... go running!
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:21 am

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 26):
It was a 777-200A, which does not has the range of the 343. It took B 2 more years to be able to offer the 772ER, which only then beat the 340.

I don't know if Boeing could have introduced it earlier or not technology-wise, but it is likely that Boeing would not have wanted to because it would have eaten into 744 marketshare early in that program's life.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:53 am

Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 23):
It is also helpful to have in mind that the deal for the single Boeing 777-200 included the cancellation of a Boeing 737 order. Austrian had to buy something form Boeing because it had an outstanding Boeing 737 order inherited from Lauda it wanted to cancel....

So to cancel a 737 order they decide to buy something much, much more expensive? Sounds like a great plan. Or a great rationalization.

Wasn't OS considering acquiring SU's 777s? That would suggest that the interest in 777s was something more than trying to cancel a 737 order.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sat Nov 26, 2005 7:13 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 25):
That's a deceptive analogy, at best

Care to expand?
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sat Nov 26, 2005 7:33 am

Since the A330/A340 were developed at the same time, and share many many components and systems, its probably better to look at the two types together.

Concerning the A342/A343, the aircraft did not sell as well as expected for a variety of reasons, most of which had little to do with the aircraft itself. Airbus had hoped to capture the DC10/L1011 replacement market in a big way, get some of the 741/742 replacement market, as well as make additional sales in the growth markets. The market changed, however, with the transatlantic market fragmenting and the smaller 763 becoming a very popular airplane over the north Atlantic. With multiple US and European hubs to be served, the 763 proved to be the right size on so many routes.....many services once flown by the DC10 were "downsized" to 767s. On the other hand, the Pacific market grew and most carriers tended to fly transpacific routes with their 744s - they needed the capacity. That left the A340 caught in the middle. Also consider that during this period, US airlines became more focused on hubs and frequency and signficantly reduced the use of widebodies on domestic routes. The A330/340 program also suffered some setbacks.....CO cancelled its order for the A330/A340, NW cancelled its A340 order and delayed delivery of its A330s for nearly ten years, TWA had an order for ten A330s that was cancelled, Air Inter promptly parked its A330 fleet and cancelled most of its order for the type, etc. Between the A342 and A343, the A343 was far more popular as most airlines preferred the 32 additional seats offered by the A343 over the slight range advantage of the A342 (most A340s were not being assigned to the longest range segments anyway). The A342/A343 was a moderate success, and established Airbus as a producer of longrange aircraft.

The A330 is another story......the initial offering, the A330-300 got off to a very slow start and had much difficulty finding a market; aside from some airlines based in Asia, there was very little interest in a medium haul high capacity airliner. The A332 re-established the A330 family with its lower seating capacity and much longer range, Airbus came up with a very versatile and very effecient twin that could truly compete with the 767 family.....the A332, to the surprise of many (probably including those over at Airbus) became the star of the A330/340 family. By applying the advancements made in the development of the A332 to the improved versions of the A333, the A333 re-established itself in the market place and proceeded to rack up sales.

Taken together, its hard to argue that the A330/A342/A343 family has not been a success for Airbus. The jury is still out concerning the A345/A346 - these two types are off to a reasonable start but are now facing intense competition from Boeing with its latest offerings.

Regarding the SQ/A343 story, its been told so many times. SQ originally signed up for the MD11 as a smaller long range airliner, it cancelled that order in favor of the A343 when SQ determined that the MD11 would miss some of its mission targets. SQ ordered the A343 and flew the type on some of its lower demand longhaul routes and its performance was acceptable (there are some reports that SQ did have some specific issues with the type but its unclear how significant such issues were). As part of a huge deal by SQ and SALE to purchase up to 77 Boeing 777s, SQ decided to eliminate the rather new A343s from their fleet. (SQ runs an effecient operation and it did not make much sense to fly the A343 and 777 side by side - although AF sees this issue differently!) It was a controversial deal for several reasons, first the A343s were very very new and some had not yet even been delivered yet to SQ, second, Boeing agreed to assist SQ with the re-marketing of the aircraft and committed to taking the aircraft in trade if SQ could not find new operators for the A343s (many of the aircraft did go to Boeing, a good number of them are now with EK), and, third, Airbus got very pissed off at the entire situation and even threatened to void the warranties and support on the subject aircraft (they did back down, upsetting SQ is not a good thing to do in the airline world). To make a long story short, SQ made a good business deal with Boeing for the 777 and the A343s got caught in the cross-fire. Many (including myself) think that SQ will eventually replace their A345s with 772LRs....the A345s have served their purpose, they allowed SQ to open up the nonstop routes from SIN to the US at the first possible moment - SQ had wanted to fly for years and years nonstop to the US, now that the 772LR is available, it makes sense for SQ to dispose of its small fleet of five A345s and add the 772LR to its already huge 777 fleet.
 
vfw614
Posts: 3163
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sat Nov 26, 2005 8:04 am

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 28):
So to cancel a 737 order they decide to buy something much, much more expensive?



Yes, because any cancellation fees go into the equation what aircraft is the most economic. If you have to pay a couple of million quid to walk away from a contract, it makes more sense to buy something more expensive from the seller than to buy something else from another seller.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 28):
Sounds like a great plan. Or a great rationalization.

Look, if the theory that OS is dumping Airbus WBs big time would be correct, they would have ordered 8 Boeing 777 and replaced their 8 Airbus A330/340 to operate a fleet of 11 Boeing 777.

It is rather bizarre to assume that the order of a single Boeing 777 by OS is evidence that countless airlines are dumping Airbus A340s and replacing them with Boeing 777s.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sat Nov 26, 2005 8:27 am

Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 31):

Look, if the theory that OS is dumping Airbus WBs big time would be correct, they would have ordered 8 Boeing 777 and replaced their 8 Airbus A330/340 to operate a fleet of 11 Boeing 777.



Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 31):

Yes, because any cancellation fees go into the equation what aircraft is the most economic. If you have to pay a couple of million quid to walk away from a contract, it makes more sense to buy something more expensive from the seller than to buy something else from another seller.

It could be more economical to operate a single fleet type and get rid of the 777s, if there isn't an operational advantage to having 777s.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
trex8
Posts: 4576
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:23 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14):
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 6):
There are RUMORS that they may eventually get rid of their A345s.

An RFP for 772LR or additional A345 isn't a rumor. Decision expected by Feb-06. Iif the 777 wins, it isn't likely the A345 would stay around for the remainder of their natural lives...

just because there is a RFP does not mean they WILL get rid of the A345 prematurely, I would agree the 772LR looks a much better candidate but thats really all speculation at this point by all of us.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 30):
Airbus got very pissed off at the entire situation and even threatened to void the warranties and support on the subject aircraft (they did back down, upsetting SQ is not a good thing to do in the airline world)

I thought it was less to placate SQ (as its hardly their problem, if Boeing were to have trashed the planes, that would be Boeings business as long as SQ got the appropriate value out of the deal!) as it was to placate the potential customers of the ex SQ planes like CX etc who were large Airbus customer already .
 
pawsleykat
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:38 pm

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sat Nov 26, 2005 4:05 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 1):
It has been said that when SQ order the B772LR then the A345s will be on the chopping board, as what happened with SQs A343, when SQ ordered more B772ERs and Boeing purchased the A343s off SQ.

But Why? They are both perfectly good aircraft. If I owned an airline (and had the money) I'd get both.

JG
First Class passengers are my favourites. They can't get any further forward without an ATPL.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9728
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:17 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 25):
Those models are paper-derated to opperate at lower performance. Every single 777-200 SQ opperates is fully capable of the maximum range/payload of the 772ER series.

BNE-SIN is well within the capability of a fully loaded 772ER

I dont know, they said they carry less and its on the limit for them, they are not the same aircraft they would do a MAN with.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
grantcv
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:28 pm

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:32 pm

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 6):
There are RUMORS that they may eventually get rid of their A345s.

I can confirm the rumours that SQ will eventually get rid of their A345s. I don't know when though.
 
Flying Belgian
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 12:45 am

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sun Nov 27, 2005 1:59 am

Sabena for sure wasn't very happy with its A340-300 & A340-200, but they were very happy with their more recent A330-200 models. The A330-300s are still the backbone of the SNBA fleet.

My opinion is that the early A340 classic models were not the expected excellent long range airliners. But the A340-313X/E is now a mature and reliable long range aircraft. Yet this one came late and was to compete with the B777.

FB.
Life is great at 41.000 feet...
 
USADreamliner
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 1:33 pm

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:22 am

Success...Hmmm... the 747-300? 717? MD11? MD90? hahaha!

There's always somebody trying to bring down Airbus.
Maybe Americans are just jealous.
They realized that the "real world" is not a Hollywood movie where they always win.


USADreamliner  box 
 
jush
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:10 am

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sun Nov 27, 2005 3:07 am

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 13):
es, it was actually. Too much capacity at a time when the industry was in a downturn forced losses.

But i wasn't bad for Boeing. That's what i meant and clearly stated. Nothing else was meant by that.
There is one problem with airbus. Though their products are engineering marvels they lack passion, completely.
 
sonic67
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 2:43 pm

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sun Nov 27, 2005 4:30 am

Quoting USADreamliner (Reply 38):
Success...Hmmm... The 747-300? 717? MD11? MD90?

Maybe you should do a little research before you post!

747 sales 1,500 sales and growing

DC9 80/90 717 more than 2000 sold

DC10/MD11 more than 746 sold

By your standards the A310,Concord and and the Carvail where all faillers too then.
 
ElGreco
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 4:32 am

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sun Nov 27, 2005 5:06 am

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 36):
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 6):
There are RUMORS that they may eventually get rid of their A345s.

I can confirm the rumours that SQ will eventually get rid of their A345s. I don't know when though.

I have got similar rumor. I know that Emirates team are very professional and very exigent, and they pay well for that.

I think (my feeling) that may be Airbus have not take care enouth about some possible small problems on Young A345 and A346 because they are too busy with the A380.

As well, Airbus was little bit "drunk"  drunk  after so much success (number one in front of Boeing, bigest commercial plane of the history,... huge order with Emirates).

So the "no order" from Emirates for 70 to 80 A350, as I heard to be signed before the Dubay Show (with possible reduction of A345 and A346 not yet delivered) is may be a signal to AIRBUS.

So we will see in few months what happen, but I think that some Airbus guys in Toulouse are know working 35 hours two times per week in place of one.
When you are right alone, you are wrong
 
trex8
Posts: 4576
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sun Nov 27, 2005 5:18 am

so you guys can confirm that the rumors exist or that the rumors are true!!!

yes, SQ will get rid of the A345s, all airlines eventually get rid of their planes at some time and SQ a lot earlier than most!

the 6 million $ question I have yet to see definitive reports of or even good rumors (as opposed to innuendo and presuppositions) from reliable sources open to the public ( not my best friends roommates cousin who works for XYZ!) is will they be going prematurely because SQ think they are dogs compared to their likely replacements or are they going as SQ often retired planes after only 7 years service only anyway.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sun Nov 27, 2005 5:54 am

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 42):
so you guys can confirm that the rumors exist or that the rumors are true!!!

yes, SQ will get rid of the A345s, all airlines eventually get rid of their planes at some time and SQ a lot earlier than most!

the 6 million $ question I have yet to see definitive reports of or even good rumors (as opposed to innuendo and presuppositions) from reliable sources open to the public ( not my best friends roommates cousin who works for XYZ!) is will they be going prematurely because SQ think they are dogs compared to their likely replacements or are they going as SQ often retired planes after only 7 years service only anyway.

You make a good point, SQ does renew its fleet on a far more aggressive schedule that most other airlines worldwide - assuming that SQ does order the 772LR in the near-term future, it will be a few years before the aircraft are delivered......by that time, the A345s will be about 5 to 6 years old and SQ would consider retiring the type. It would be very early for most airlines, but not exceptionally early for SQ.

If SQ does replace its A345s with 772LRs as many except (I think that this will happen too), consider the following:

1. It makes sense: SQ has a huge 777 fleet and only 5 A345s.....from an economic and effeciency point of view, it makes total sense for SQ to replace the A345s with 772LRs. The 772LRs have much in common with SQ's other 777s (including the -300ERs).....the A345 stand alone.

2. The A345s have basically served their purpose at this point in time.....SQ wanted to introduce nonstop service from SIN to the US and the A345 allowed SQ to accomplish this goal. By flying the A345, SQ launched its nonstop flights years earlier than would have been possible if they had waited for the 772LR. Now that a newer (better?) ultra long range airliner is available, SQ will certainly consider moving along from the A345 to 772LR.

3. SQ's inability to offer an F class product on its ultra long range flights has been a major problem.....18-19 hour nonstop flights are one of the few markets where pax are willing to pay for comfort and room. SQ did not (could not) offer F class on the A345 due to the weight of the suites.

Even if most conclude that the 772LR is now the "better" ULH airliner, remember that the A345 was the "first" ULH airliner......thus, some airlines (including SQ) may now elect to renew their ULH fleets.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8538
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:02 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 35):
I dont know, they said they carry less and its on the limit for them, they are not the same aircraft they would do a MAN with.

Physically speaking, they are the same. SQ calls them 777-200(A), but they were built and are capable of flying at full 772ER capability. Boeing has not delivered a single true 772A to SQ because they are all paper-derated 772ER.

It is a very confusing and easy to mistake by anyone.
 
OHLHD
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 6:02 am

RE: Failure Of Early Airbus 340?

Sun Nov 27, 2005 4:22 pm

Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 31):
Look, if the theory that OS is dumping Airbus WBs big time would be correct, they would have ordered 8 Boeing 777 and replaced their 8 Airbus A330/340 to operate a fleet of 11 Boeing 777.

It is rather bizarre to assume that the order of a single Boeing 777 by OS is evidence that countless airlines are dumping Airbus A340s and replacing them with Boeing 777s.

OS sells it A342 to the french govnmt. They are adding one B777 to ist fleet as a replacement. The old B767 will fly for a few more years and eventually will be replaced by B787. However after 2015 they will have A332,B777 and B787. This is the plan OS CEO Sörensen planned. But as he will go from OS we will see if they will keep it or not.

OS was considering the A346 but there is some kind of check which has to be peformed at VIE which must be done every 24h??? and the A346 can´t make the Kangoroo Hop within this period. I still believe they should have ordered a B773ER as there is enough demand on the Sydney route.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AirIndia, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], caflyboy, Focker, ikolkyo, pdx, SCQ83, tcaeyx, whywhyzee, Yahoo [Bot] and 196 guests