YULWinterSkies
Topic Author
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:42 pm

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:11 am

I think we can say "was" because no A342 has been built for a while, and only very few were built (iirc ~ 30). Also, their operators such as AF and LH got rid of them quickly.

What was wrong with the A342 then?

Please no answers such as "the 777 is better", because, irregardless of how better it is, it is also MUCH larger!

However, the day these beauties will leave the skies will be a very sad day for aviation


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Josh Akbar - NYCAviation



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Fabio Laranjeira - Contato Radar



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Allen Yao



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Je89 W.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter Unmuth-VAP



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Azman Noorani

When I doubt... go running!
 
trex8
Posts: 4606
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:43 am

nothing except that they were able to make the A343 fly as far as the original A342s and with more capacity!
 
YULWinterSkies
Topic Author
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:42 pm

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:33 pm

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 1):
nothing except that they were able to make the A343 fly as far as the original A342s and with more capacity!

Sorry to be picky, but what if one does not need the capacity of an A343? Doesn't it make more sense to fly a shorter, lighter A342? Both could be easily operated side by side like the 332 and 343 commonly are, or the 332 and the 333.

And if I read Airbus' data, the A342 is supposed to have more range... (I know this is Airbus' data and this should be regarded with caution...) The 342 claims 14,800 km whereas the 343 claims 13,350 km...
http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...0a340/a340-200/specifications.html
http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...0a340/a340-300/specifications.html
When I doubt... go running!
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13072
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:47 pm

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 2):
And if I read Airbus' data, the A342 is supposed to have more range... (I know this is Airbus' data and this should be regarded with caution...) The 342 claims 14,800 km whereas the 343 claims 13,350 km...

I believe those A342 range figures are for the A340-213X, the high gross weight version, of which however only one was built.
 
luisca
Posts: 1530
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2001 11:37 am

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:49 pm

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 2):
Sorry to be picky, but what if one does not need the capacity of an A343? Doesn't it make more sense to fly a shorter, lighter A342? Both could be easily operated side by side like the 332 and 343 commonly are, or the 332 and the 333.

I think the problem was that the savings (vs the A343) were not significant enough to justify using this smaller aircraft. Basically if you needed a smaller aircraft then all you needed to do was just use an A332.

Airbus finished killing its own airplane when they increased the MTOW on the A343, this allowed the A343 to have almost the same range as the A342 but with lower CASM.

Airbus tried to sell the A342X (A340-8000X) as a Very Long Range aircraft, but only one was sold. (to the sultan of Brunei)
If it ain't Boeing (or Embraer ;-)) I ain't Going!
 
YULWinterSkies
Topic Author
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:42 pm

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:59 pm

Thanks

Your comments make sense  Smile  Smile
When I doubt... go running!
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:05 pm

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 2):
Sorry to be picky, but what if one does not need the capacity of an A343? Doesn't it make more sense to fly a shorter, lighter A342? Both could be easily operated side by side like the 332 and 343 commonly are, or the 332 and the 333

Here's the deal. Unless you need the range 342 offered, you could fly a 333 for the same fuel cost, carry more people and cargo, and go almost as far. If you needed the range, the 343 went just as far, and offered the extra capacity if you needed it, and wasn't really much more to run either.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 4834
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:20 pm

When will people learn? It was a niche airliner built just for CO and DL!!!

Hang on, I may be getting mixed up here...  worried 
 
Thorben
Posts: 2713
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:29 pm

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Fri Mar 31, 2006 6:56 pm

I flew it with LH three times, a very nice aircraft. Probably the A343 has better economics and there are too few routes where you really need that range advantage.
France 1789; Eastern Germany 1989; Tunisia 2011; Egypt 2011
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:29 pm

Quoting PM (Reply 7):
It was a niche airliner built just for CO and DL!!!

LOL

Quoting Thorben (Reply 8):
I flew it with LH three times, a very nice aircraft.

Yeah, very impressive. I really liked those 12,000'+ take-off rolls on DFW's 13,401' long 17R in August when it is 105 degrees (F). Of course, the A-340-200's longer brother, the A-340-300 used up just as much runway. Gotta love those four hairdriers.

The B-777-200/ER is a better airplane.

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Thread starter):
Please no answers such as "the 777 is better", because, irregardless of how better it is

Opps, sorry. The devil (Boeing?) made me do it.
 
Interpaul
Posts: 401
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 8:19 pm

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:37 pm

Quoting Luisca (Reply 4):
but with lower CASM.

Maybe a stupid question, but what's CASM?

Cheers
Jan
 
MarcoT
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:55 pm

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:09 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
Yeah, very impressive. I really liked those 12,000'+ take-off rolls on DFW's 13,401' long 17R in August when it is 105 degrees (F). Of course, the A-340-200's longer brother, the A-340-300 used up just as much runway. Gotta love those four hairdriers.

The B-777-200/ER is a better airplane.

You know, a bit of harmless bragging about performances, hairdriers and the likes is ok, but when someone let's all this clouds his judgement to the point of making such senseless remarks there's a problem.

The 772ER has a significant margin in thrust to weight ratio and nobody will dispute that is somewhat bigger than the usual twin vs quad unaivodable margin. Yet in the one engine off scenario the A343 at MTOW beats the 772ER at MTOW by a similar margin... This meant that in most cases the A343 use all this runway lenght just because it _legally_ can, whereas the 772ER (or any similar big twin) cannot.

The A343 does not come up short in short field take off performance even compared to other quads. I humbly suggest that you educate yourself about the fact that -for instance- AF A343 does SXM-CDG nonstop, while all 747 services from SXM to Europe where/are forced to a tech stop.
Naturally a 772ER (or a A330 for that matter) is nowhere ever remotly capable of that ...
Too short space for my favorite hopelessly long winded one liner
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:27 pm

Quoting Interpaul (Reply 10):
Maybe a stupid question, but what's CASM?

CASM is what the plane costs to operate per Average Seat Mile
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:29 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
The B-777-200/ER is a better airplane.

Its not the same class though. The 777-100 would have been boeings equivilamt to the A342
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:07 pm

The basic problem is the OEW is negligible between the A342X and the A343X. Somewhere between 1-3 tons, i can't remember off the top of my head, but i remember it's quite surprising. So why limit your revenue potential by ordering the A342. For the large part, the reason the A342 is noted as having the longer range than the A343, is because of the extra weight of passengers the A343 must carry. If the A343 was filled with the same number of pax than the A342, the A343 wouldn't be too far off.

So in short the A342 has no big advantage over the A343.

Of course, before the two were enhanced the A342 had a larger range advantage and was worthwhile.
 
User avatar
breiz
Posts: 1418
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:12 pm

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 1:09 am

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 2):
(I know this is Airbus' data and this should be regarded with caution...)

Do you mean that Airbus does not know the performances of their own planes?
Or that they deliberately provide wrong information?
That was quite a strange statement.
 
azza40
Posts: 1032
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:18 am

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 1:13 am

i dont think the 342 was made for big sales.

Aaron  sly 
Not been on here for a good 2/3 years!
 
Birdwatching
Posts: 3574
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 10:48 am

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 1:19 am

So I guess that 5 years down the road the guys at Airevents.de might need to charter one for all the people who need the 342 in their log? Big grin

I just checked mine, in my whole life I flew on the dash 200 only once, from SCL to EZE on LV-ZPO on July 31, 1999.

One less thing to worry about!

Soren  santahat 


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Yevgeny Pashnin

All the things you probably hate about travelling are warm reminders that I'm home
 
luisca
Posts: 1530
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2001 11:37 am

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 1:20 am

Quoting MarcoT (Reply 11):
You know, a bit of harmless bragging about performances, hairdriers and the likes is ok, but when someone let's all this clouds his judgement to the point of making such senseless remarks ...

Marco, you really need a drink man, read tow lines from the last 2 lines of the statement you are refuting and you will see he was joking.

Some people take A vs B way to seriously.
If it ain't Boeing (or Embraer ;-)) I ain't Going!
 
doug_or
Posts: 3122
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 9:55 am

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 1:20 am

Cost per Available Seat Mile.
When in doubt, one B pump off
 
User avatar
breiz
Posts: 1418
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:12 pm

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 1:45 am

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Thread starter):
I think we can say "was" because no A342 has been built for a while

Rightly so since Airbus stopped its production in 2002.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 6):
Here's the deal. Unless you need the range 342 offered, you could fly a 333 for the same fuel cost, carry more people and cargo, and go almost as far. If you needed the range, the 343 went just as far, and offered the extra capacity if you needed it, and wasn't really much more to run either.

That's the point. The A340-200 became kind of redundant:
A330-200 256 pax on 6400 nm
A340-200 263 pax on 7450 nm
A330-300 295 pax on 5600 nm
A340-300 295 pax on 7300/7500 nm
 
MarcoT
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:55 pm

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:18 am

Quoting Luisca (Reply 18):
Some people take A vs B way to seriously.

Guilt as charged, but it is my character, and the problem -generally speaking- it is that it is not as much a war, more a constant A aggression, and I suffer also from Don Chisciotte delusion  Smile
Too short space for my favorite hopelessly long winded one liner
 
luisca
Posts: 1530
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2001 11:37 am

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:29 am

Quoting MarcoT (Reply 21):
Guilt as charged, but it is my character, and the problem -generally speaking- it is that it is not as much a war, more a constant A aggression, and I suffer also from Don Chisciotte delusion

But you have to remember that from a Boeing nuts point of view there is a constant aggression from A cheerleaders towards B.

I used to take A vs. B too seriously, until one day fighting back and forth with Keesje (how surprising!) I realized that I was not going to change his mind and he would still keep writing (in my opinion) his usual useless dribble. Then I decided not to take the A vs. B thing personally, how many A.net members do you know personally? probably 0, so what use is it to try to change there minds.

Relax, you love A, I love B, have a margarita and enjoy your Friday.
If it ain't Boeing (or Embraer ;-)) I ain't Going!
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 4834
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:36 am

Quoting Luisca (Reply 22):
have a margarita and enjoy your Friday.

Margarita? MARGARITA?! What's wrong with Gin & Tonic?! Typical! You margatita lovers are so blinkered. Gin is so much better than tequila. Wake up! Gin far outsells tequila worldwide. It gets you drunk 14% faster! It costs 8% less per ml. No contest! Sheesh!
 
luisca
Posts: 1530
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2001 11:37 am

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:41 am

Quoting PM (Reply 23):
Margarita? MARGARITA?! What's wrong with Gin & Tonic?! Typical! You margatita lovers are so blinkered. Gin is so much better than tequila. Wake up! Gin far outsells tequila worldwide. It gets you drunk 14% faster! It costs 8% less per ml. No contest! Sheesh!

Don't blame me, I am a quarter Mexican, I just suggested Margarita because it is a relaxing drink in my opinion.

I cant drink tonic, it makes me wanna puke. I personally drink 8 year old Abuelo (Panamanian aged rum) on the rocks. (I am 3/4 Panamanian)
If it ain't Boeing (or Embraer ;-)) I ain't Going!
 
CRGsFuture
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:04 pm

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:43 am

So guys, with the A342 what airlines still operate them?
Flying you to your destination; your girlfriend to her dreams.
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 4834
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:56 am

Quoting CRGsFuture (Reply 25):
So guys, with the A342 what airlines still operate them?

28 were built and one (a Sabena plane leased to Air France) has been written off.

Of the remaining 27,

SAA has 6
Aerolineas Argentinas has 4
Royal Jordanian has 4
Egyptair has 3
Air Madrid has 1

French Air Force has 2

The remaining 7 are VIP.
 
Thorben
Posts: 2713
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:29 pm

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 4:07 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
The B-777-200/ER is a better airplane.

Care to explain why? Because it has weight restrictions in hot and high places?
France 1789; Eastern Germany 1989; Tunisia 2011; Egypt 2011
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 4:55 am

Quoting MarcoT (Reply 11):
The A343 does not come up short in short field take off performance even compared to other quads. I humbly suggest that you educate yourself about the fact that -for instance- AF A343 does SXM-CDG nonstop, while all 747 services from SXM to Europe where/are forced to a tech stop.
Naturally a 772ER (or a A330 for that matter) is nowhere ever remotly capable of that ...

Well, a 747 is a much larger aircraft.... It has to carry less fuel to get off at SXM because of higher structural weight.

Quoting PM (Reply 23):
Margarita? MARGARITA?! What's wrong with Gin & Tonic?! Typical! You margatita lovers are so blinkered. Gin is so much better than tequila. Wake up! Gin far outsells tequila worldwide. It gets you drunk 14% faster! It costs 8% less per ml. No contest! Sheesh!

Silly people. Vodka has you both beat on all counts. I hear you can run your car off Gin though.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 27):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
The B-777-200/ER is a better airplane.

Care to explain why? Because it has weight restrictions in hot and high places?

Instead of arguing why don't we ask all the airlines who bough 772ER instead of A342?
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 4834
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 5:07 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 28):
Silly people. Vodka has you both beat on all counts. I hear you can run your car off Gin though.

Yeah, Randy promoted Vodka on his blog a couple of weeks ago but the very next day Leahy issued a statement saying that he could prove that Gin tasted 9% better and 17% better in hot'n'high conditions!  Wink
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 5:25 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 28):
Instead of arguing why don't we ask all the airlines who bough 772ER instead of A342?

Again, the 772 has to be compared to the A333/343.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
boeingguy1
Posts: 395
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 4:31 am

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:38 am

Quoting Thorben (Reply 27):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
The B-777-200/ER is a better airplane.

Care to explain why? Because it has weight restrictions in hot and high places?

Thorben, take a chill pill. He was joking, let it go.
Gatwick South! Id rather crash in Brighton!
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:58 am

Quoting Luisca (Reply 4):
Airbus finished killing its own airplane when they increased the MTOW on the A343,

But that meant more A343 sales, so it was good thing.
 
irelayer
Posts: 929
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:34 pm

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 8:37 am

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Thread starter):
Please no answers such as "the 777 is better", because, irregardless of how better it is, it is also MUCH larger!

Please no words like "irregardless". That word you are looking for is "regardless".

The 777-200ER IS a better aircraft, and it is not that much larger. This has been discussed to death. The A342 failed because for the same reason why the 747SP failed...it was a longer range, shortened derivative of a larger aircraft that cost about the same to fly around as said aircraft but with less seats and less seats = more CASM and if you don't need the range, then what's the point? A 763 or a 333 will do the job just as well in most cases, for less money.

Simple.

-IR
 
jcf5002
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:41 am

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:21 am

Quoting Luisca (Reply 24):
Quoting PM (Reply 23):Margarita? MARGARITA?! What's wrong with Gin & Tonic?! Typical! You margatita lovers are so blinkered. Gin is so much better than tequila. Wake up! Gin far outsells tequila worldwide. It gets you drunk 14% faster! It costs 8% less per ml. No contest! Sheesh!
Don't blame me, I am a quarter Mexican, I just suggested Margarita because it is a relaxing drink in my opinion.

I cant drink tonic, it makes me wanna puke. I personally drink 8 year old Abuelo (Panamanian aged rum) on the rocks. (I am 3/4 Panamanian)

so what? now we've dropped the A vs B war and made it the M vs GT war? Personally, as a good 'ol American I'll take whiskey any day of the week... ummm A340-what?

[Edited 2006-04-01 01:22:43]
Its always a sunny day above the clouds || CSEL, CMEL, CFI, CFII, MEI
 
iluv2pilot
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 2:55 am

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:29 am

The A340 is not a good looking airplane.
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:38 am

Quoting Iluv2pilot (Reply 35):
The A340 is not a good looking airplane.

Haha great April Fools joke.  rotfl 

She's stunning in RJ's livery.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Josh Akbar - NYCAviation
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Brian Futterman - NYCAviation



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark Tang - HKAEC
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Raymond Wang

 
jseesue
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 5:21 am

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:06 am

The A340-200 is the physical incarnation of Airbus' socialist manufacturing at its most wasteful and least market-driven. It was an experiment in large aircraft production and served no other purpose than to be a proof of concept for Airbus.

Actually, it turned out to be a Refute of Concept, but thanks to risk-free launch-aid, Airbus was shielded from the real-world ramifications of their mediocre design.

The A340-300, -500, and -600 are slowly creeping into this category as well.
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:25 am

Somebody please tell me Jseesue's existence on this site is some sick April Fools joke gone too far.
 
AvFan4ever
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 7:07 pm

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:46 am

Quoting Jseesue (Reply 37):
The A340-200 is the physical incarnation of Airbus' socialist manufacturing at its most wasteful and least market-driven. It was an experiment in large aircraft production and served no other purpose than to be a proof of concept for Airbus.

Actually, it turned out to be a Refute of Concept, but thanks to risk-free launch-aid, Airbus was shielded from the real-world ramifications of their mediocre design.

The A340-300, -500, and -600 are slowly creeping into this category as well.

Absolutely correct. Industry insiders all know this (starting with Leahy), yet the users of this forum continue to debate the obvious.
 
Boeing744
Posts: 1735
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:27 pm

What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:10 am

A little off topic, but is the A342 as infamously underpowered as the A343?
 
sparkingwave
Posts: 563
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:01 pm

RE: What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 5:21 pm

The A340-200 is a graceful plane that looks very official. I think it's a symbolic aircraft for Airbus because it proved that Airbus could manufacture a competent family of aircraft in the A330-A340 series.

Yes, it could be like the 747SP, another graceful plane. But later generations of aircraft would economically outperform the aircraft and lead to its passing on.

It's good to give the A340-200 her due, but we have to move on. Otherwise, we could have the same discussion of the DeHavilland Comet, the 707 or DC-8, the DC-3, and other great airliners from the past. There's too many exciting new aircraft coming in the future for us to dwell too much on the past.

SparkingWave ~~~
Flights to the moon and all major space stations. At Pan Am, the sky is no longer the limit!
 
DLKAPA
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

RE: What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 5:28 pm

Quoting EI321 (Reply 12):
CASM is what the plane costs to operate per Average Seat Mile

CASM = Cost per Available Seat Mile. Basically when you break it down, it's how much it costs the airline to fly one seat on the airplane a distance of one mile. Or so I'm told.
And all at once the crowd begins to sing: Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same
 
Joost
Posts: 1841
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:27 pm

RE: What Was Wrong With The A342?

Sat Apr 01, 2006 5:41 pm

The A340-200 also never was the plane it was intended to be. It should have been built with the infamous PW fan, but the engine was not there when the plane was ready, so at a very late moment in the design process, the CFM56 was installed.

But it was indeed not a very good plane from an economical point of view  Smile