eastern023
Posts: 631
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:54 am

Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:28 am

Just wondering why any US carrier has ordered Airbus 340 for their long range fleets. UA, NW even US perhaps?.
AA will Rise Again!
 
JetBlueGuy2006
Posts: 1482
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:38 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:31 am

I would tend to think that they have their fleets of A330, 747, 757, 767 that they need for International Travel. Maybe if they have a major overhall of their fleet they will replace the 757 or the 747 to go towards an all Boeing Fleet.

My .02

[Edited 2006-08-10 22:32:45]
Home Airport: Capital Region International Airport (KLAN)
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:44 am

Continental actually did order the A340, but then later cancelled the order during their times of financial difficulty in the 1990s. Continental was looking to replace DC10s and 747-200s with A340s, but kept them in the fleet until later and eventually removed them after 9/11 and went to an all 757, 767 and 777 long haul fleet, which was ordered after the bankruptcies in the early 90s under Gordon Bethune's direction.

The A340 serves no purpose for US since it doesn't need that much range. The lighter and cheaper A330 is better suited for them since their longest flights are to Europe from the East Coast.

UA chose the 777 to replace DC10s and has kept a 747 fleet. UA was the launch customer for the 777 and had the plane designed heavily to meet their required specifications. There is no way that they would have purchased the A340.

NW waited and didn't jump on the bandwagon and replace the trijets when all the other US airlines did. If NW had purchased a new plane in the 1990s, I am guessing they would have gone for the A343 since the A332 was not around and the A333 does not have enough range for any transpacific flights except SEA-NRT. But NW seems to be a bit of an oddball. They were the first US airline and a very early customer for the A320 back in 1989, yet they are the only one of the big six airlines that does not operate the 767 extensively. The A340 probably would have fit very well into NW's network since it would have worked well for routes from the West Coast to Japan and to other cities where there isn't enough demand for a 744 like JFK-NRT.

The A340 was a great plane in the early 1990s. However a big factor in no US airlines ordering it was the fact that there was a lot of financial turmoil in 1991-1992. Pan Am and Eastern folded and other airlines suffered. The few airlines that could order new planes like AA went with the MD-11, which turned out to be a flop. By the time the airlines were ready to order and expand their long haul fleets in the late 1990s, Boeing had come out with the 777-200ER, which outsold the A343 heavily. Nowadays, the A340 is pretty much dead and won't seem too many more orders unless something happens. The fleets of 250-350 passenger planes have been built up and new widebody orders are going to newer developments such as the 787, A350, 748 and A380.

[Edited 2006-08-10 22:50:29]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
ThePRGuy
Posts: 1833
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:07 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:44 am

Heavy
Burns more fuel than A330
On some routes, capacity is not needed, and if it is, 777 can take care of it

Its just not as economical as some of the other options
Heathrow has been described as the only building site to have its own airport.
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:09 am

Quoting ThePRGuy (Reply 4):
Heavy
Burns more fuel than A330
On some routes, capacity is not needed, and if it is, 777 can take care of it

Its just not as economical as some of the other options

That's not really an answer because it's not unique to the US. Nor is the A340-300 heavy.

In general US Airlines at the time of selection had a better relationship with Boeing. Airbus was yet to be as proven and experiences with airlines such as Delta's A310s weren't doing it any favours. Then factor in Bethune's relationship with Boeing, that led to the A340 order cancellation, and the Superfan fiasco stopped NW's order. So that's ruled out DL, CO and NW for starters. Then you've got AA and UA, both have had a strong relationship with Boeing over the years and would have definately favoured Boeing offerings. Not to say that the 777's performance merit's never came into it. And although US Ordered the A330, their east coast hubs and non-existant transpacific market meant they had no demand for such range.

So, it just never happend really. AC took some though and it seemed to work well for them, regardless of recent events.

Re: A345/6. No US airline really desired the capacity or the range of these aircraft to justify it's introduction to the fleet.

[Edited 2006-08-10 23:10:02]
 
ThePRGuy
Posts: 1833
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:07 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:11 am

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 5):
Nor is the A340-300 heavy.

I was talking in comparison with the A330, which is a lighter airframe.
Heathrow has been described as the only building site to have its own airport.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:50 am

Quoting ThePRGuy (Reply 6):
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 5):
Nor is the A340-300 heavy.

I was talking in comparison with the A330, which is a lighter airframe.

It depends on what the plane is being used for. Yes the A340 is heavier, but it is heavier because it has more range. The A340-300 is not too heavy. The A340-200 probably is and has a range that no airline really needed or wanted at the time. The A330-300 is lighter, but has less range. It is a tradeoff. Airbus decided that it was best to design two planes while Boeing created a heavy twin in the 777. The 777-200ER didn't come out until 4 years later.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
aircanada014
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:24 pm

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:51 am

[quote=ThePRGuy,reply=6]I was talking in comparison with the A330, which is a lighter airframe[/quote. I thought the A340 and A330 airframes are the same?
 
FWAERJ
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:23 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 7:01 am

IMO, it's sorta sad that we'll probably never see one of those beautiful four-holers in the colors of a US carrier. And here's why (besides high oil prices):

-UA: A 777 launch customer with 2nd largest B777 fleet in the world.
-AA: Initially ordered MD-11, switched to B777 and has 46 of them.
-DL: Rumored to be ordering B772LRs to complement B772ERs.
-CO: Very loyal Boeing customer with a large B777 fleet.
-NW: Post-BK, I see them ordering B773ERs to replace their 744 fleet.
-US: No Asian routes, so no need for A340 or B777.
"Did he really need the triple bypass? Or was it the miles?"
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 7:07 am

In the late 1980s, the US airlines were doing very well with their B-767-300ERs, which had all the range they needed. The early 1990s for these airlines was very hard on them finanically. By the mid to late 1990s, AA and DL thought the MD-11 offered more of what they wanted than the A-340-200/-300 did. CO was having finance problems and DL did not like the A-310s they got from PA, so any Airbus order from DL was doubtful. DL was very happy with their L-1011-500s and B-767-200/-300/ER. In fact the bought used B-767-200ERs from overseas based airlines to add to their fleet. AA, however did lease the A-300-600 around this time. As it turned out AA eventually decided they didn't like the A-300. NW and UA still had relitively new B-747-400s, and older B-747-200s and DC-10-10/-30/-40s. So they really were not "looking" for a new wide body. Additionally, UA still had lots of B-767-200/-300/ER

But, the MD-11 also turned into a disappointment for DL and AA. Fortunately, for AA, DL, UA, and CO the B-777-200/ER came along just at the right time to replace the MD-11s, DC-10s, and older B-747s. NW decided on the A-330-200 for their long range fleet, to eventually begin replacing their DC-10-40s. US also began buying A-330-200s to begin replacing their B-767-200ERs.

Other than CO, the US airlines really did not need any version of the A-340. They settled on the B-747-400 as their only 4 engine aircraft, long ranged aircraft (not including the BAe-146 regional jet flown for NW and UA). The B-747-400 carried more people and cargo further than the A-340-300 could. The B-747 worked very well for the NW and UA Pacific routes.

But, what killed any hope for A-340 sales in the US was the B-777.
 
AirWillie6475
Posts: 2372
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:45 pm

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 7:18 am

U.S airlines haven't ordered the 747 to begin with, what makes you think they would be interested in the a340?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 7:38 am

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 11):
U.S airlines haven't ordered the 747 to begin with, what makes you think they would be interested in the a340?

But, both NW and UA ordered the B-747-400 early in the 1990s.
 
charlienorth
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:24 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 7:39 am

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 11):
U.S airlines haven't ordered the 747 to begin with, what makes you think they would be interested in the a340?

Say what?
Work hard fly right..don't understand it
 
ScottB
Posts: 5458
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 7:43 am

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 5):
Then you've got AA and UA, both have had a strong relationship with Boeing over the years

Actually, I would argue that AA and Delta both had a very strong relationship with McDonnell-Douglas as well over the years which led to both airlines ordering and flying the MD-11. When it became clear that the MD-11 was a relative disappointment, the 777 was clearly the superior replacement for both carriers, given that both airlines had an extensive history with ETOPS on their 767's and the maintenance/fuel burn advantage that the large twins had (along with both airlines being satisfied with their existing Boeing fleets).

Northwest's strategy appeared to be to keep its capital costs down by purchasing used DC-10's which, given lower fuel prices, could have held them in good stead until well past 2010. NWA estimated that their DC-10 fleet could fly an average of 20 additional years at the end of 1998! Continental ended up hiring a former Boeing executive, white United had a great deal of input on defining the 777. And USAir(ways) historically never needed long-range aircraft, what with smaller East Coast hubs having very limited demand to Asia and a relatively small transatlantic presence.
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:41 am

To be honest i'm more suprised only one ended up with the A330. It seems tailor made for US East Coast flights to Europe.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:45 am

As pointed out above, both NW and CO were early A330/A340 customers and TW was a very early A330 customer.......most of the airplanes covered by these orders were never delivered and the reasons have little to do with the A330/A340 itself.

NW was an early (launch?) customer for the A330/A340.....I believe that one or more A340s was even painted in NW colors, the problem was that NW was having major financial problems just when the airplanes were to be delivered....the early build A343s flown by Virgin Atlantic were actually intended for NW. Over the years, NW continued to defer, delay and revise its orders with Airbus......NW never took delivery of an A340 but lots and lots of A320s and then A319s were ordered by and delivered to NW to compensate for those A340s. NW built up its widebody fleet with used DC10-30s which were affordable and availible at the time. And, many years later than planned, NW finally took delivery of its A330s.....of course, the A330s delivered to NW were far more capable airplanes than those ordered way back when, and NW did revise its A330 order one last time to include A332s and A333s.

CO also signed up for the A330/A340....back then, the idea was that the A330 and A340 would replace CO's DC10 and 747 fleet.....A330s would handle the European flights and the A340s would fly the Pacific routes (dont forget that this was when CO flew to the Fiji, New Zealand and Australia)....CO's visit to the bankrupcty court changed those plans and CO's Airbus order was cancelled pursuant to the court procedure. CO also elected to build up its longhaul fleet with used DC10s.....and placed large orders with Boeing for new airliners, but the first focus was on 735s and 752s back then to clean up CO's mismatched and rather troublesome shorthaul fleet. Eventually, CO became an all Boeing airline.

And then there is TWA, TW placed an early order for ten A330-300s as potential L1011 replacements....TW had planned to use the A333s on JFK-Europe routes but it never came to be as TW had all kinds of financial and managment problems. The A330s were delayed countless times and finally, years later, TW covered the A330 order to the A318 order......TW no longer had a need for the big A330s with its shrinking longhaul route system. TW never took delivery of any of its A318s either, as that order was cancelled as part of the pre-packaged bankruptcy proceeding TW went though prior to being merged into AA.
 
bohica
Posts: 2309
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:21 pm

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:05 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
But, both NW and UA ordered the B-747-400 early in the 1990s.

They were actually ordered in the late 1980's. NW received their first one in 1988 and UA received their first one in 1989. Still, neither carrier had a need for the A340.
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:17 am

Very simple - ETOPS was pushed, invented, proved by Boeing and US Airlines - they bet on it, rather than on smaller 4-engine planes to enable them to serve more point-to-point routes and destinations.

Europeans and some asian airlines were very, very skeptical of ETOPS and twins doing very-long-haul and bet on 747-400 and A340. They also were very skeptical that anyone could produce a viable 115Klbs engine (like the GE115B) and thought that twins would be growth-limited.

Now they are paying the price with the residual value of A340s plunging.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
louA340
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:19 pm

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:17 am

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 15):
To be honest i'm more suprised only one ended up with the A330. It seems tailor made for US East Coast flights to Europe

I think the airlines are all satisfied with their 767's which does the job very well. The 767's seem to take the title when it comes to the number of daily flights flown across the Atlantic.
RyEng
 
gunsontheroof
Posts: 3226
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:30 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:21 am

Quoting Eastern023 (Thread starter):
Just wondering why any US carrier has ordered Airbus 340 for their long range fleets. UA, NW even US perhaps?.

Because evidently, it's not four engines four the long haul.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 15):
To be honest i'm more suprised only one ended up with the A330. It seems tailor made for US East Coast flights to Europe.

Looks like two to me.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bruce Leibowitz



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bill Shull

 
COSPN
Posts: 1535
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 6:33 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:32 am

CO 2 engines 2 save fuel...........CO is a 2 engine airline
 
AirWillie6475
Posts: 2372
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:45 pm

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:25 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
But, both NW and UA ordered the B-747-400 early in the 1990s.



Quoting Charlienorth (Reply 13):
Say what?

No shit, I'm just saying a lot haven't.
 
RAPCON
Posts: 651
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:20 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:24 pm

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 5):
Airbus was yet to be as proven and experiences with airlines such as Delta's A310s weren't doing it any favours.

RJ111,

The words "DELTA" & "A310" are just blasmephous words that should never, ever, be uttered in A.Net again!!!




 Silly
MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:41 pm

None of them really needed it. Most of the US airlines are closer to Boeing, and during the early 90s, US airlines were either in crisis, or hedging their bets on MD-11. By the time the MD-11 proved a dissapointment, 772ER was already out - and A343 was outclassed.

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 9):
-NW: Post-BK, I see them ordering B773ERs to replace their 744 fleet.

Ohh, I don't know. I don't see the 744s going anywhere anytime soon. They still have to buy a lot of aircraft to replace the last DC-9s, they just bought a slew of A330s and 787s, I think it'll be a little while before we see the 744s going anywhere....my guess is they still have to get rid of the 742's first....

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 9):
-US: No Asian routes, so no need for A340 or B777.

Their 767 fleet met all their demands for transatlantic - and then they went right to A330. They really don't fly any real long routes.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 18):
Now they are paying the price with the residual value of A340s plunging.

and the soaring price of fuel.

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 23):

The words "DELTA" & "A310" are just blasmephous words that should never, ever, be uttered in A.Net again!!!

Airbus left a bad taste in AA's mouth with A300 and DL's with A310. That's probably a lot of why we don't see airbus long haul orders of them.

I think most of Panam was a disaster by the time DL bought their remains.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
eastern023
Posts: 631
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:54 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:54 pm

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 20):
Quoting Eastern023 (Thread starter):
Just wondering why any US carrier has ordered Airbus 340 for their long range fleets. UA, NW even US perhaps?.

Because evidently, it's not four engines four the long haul.

The A340 has 4 engines my friend. The picture you display is an A330.
AA will Rise Again!
 
burnsie28
Posts: 5042
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:49 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Sat Aug 12, 2006 12:13 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):

But, both NW and UA ordered the B-747-400 early in the 1990s.

They were ordered in the early-mid 80's

Quoting Bohica (Reply 17):
NW received their first one in 1988

NW recieved the first built 744 in 1989.
 
mirrodie
Posts: 6789
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 3:33 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:06 am

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 3):
The A340 was a great plane in the early 1990s

it still is a great plane.

on the inside, I find it comparable to the 777.

You know, while we are discussing it....many here call the MD-11 a failure. Based on what??? Its still used todayand its a great a/c.


Further, this blows my mind. most of hte trijets are on their way out, right? 3 engines, for reasons unknown to me, are a PITA and 4 holers are not as efficent as newer 2 holers.


SO why is it that Dasualt is working on the Falcon 7X ( I think) another trijet?

Why to trijets continue to have life in the small jet market?
Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
 
YULWinterSkies
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:42 pm

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:25 am

$$$. CO did order it but cancelled due to financial difficulties. The illustration, if needed, that Airbus does not give its products for free....

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 18):
Europeans and some asian airlines were very, very skeptical of ETOPS and twins doing very-long-haul and bet on 747-400 and A340. They also were very skeptical that anyone could produce a viable 115Klbs engine (like the GE115B) and thought that twins would be growth-limited.

Now they are paying the price with the residual value of A340s plunging.

Then, how can you explain the general better financial shape of the European and Asian carriers?
FYI SQ, BA and AF are the world's # 1, 4 and 5 operators of the 777, 2 of them also operate the 340 and all of them are financially doing well...

Quoting Mirrodie (Reply 27):
many here call the MD-11 a failure. Based on what???

I guess its premature drop in sales, being IMO killed by the 340/330 and by Boeing developing the 777 to make sure it did not come back to life in case Airbus' killing was not deadly enough....
And also maybe because that's the last a/c develop by MDD before their merger....
When I doubt... go running!
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:34 am

Quoting Mirrodie (Reply 27):
You know, while we are discussing it....many here call the MD-11 a failure. Based on what??? Its still used todayand its a great a/c.

The plane only sold 200 frames, was quickly disposed of by airlines that ordered it. The plane did not meet the specifications that were promised at first. It was overweight, lacked range and higher fuel consumption. By the time some of these problems were addressed, airlines had gone elsewhere. AA and DL both dumped theirs. The plane is a good plane for cargo since the limited range isn't a factor, but the planes high MTOW is useful.

Quoting Mirrodie (Reply 27):
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 3):
The A340 was a great plane in the early 1990s

it still is a great plane

The A340 is still a good plane. It is operating for many airlines and will continue to fly for many years. However it isn't a great enough plane for airlines to order it. And like I said, airlines really have filled their needs for a 250-300 capacity plane. Sales for the 777-200 are really low now too. Unfortunately the A346 isn't selling as well as the 773ER.

All in all the A340 is a good plane, but it isn't getting big orders now. What was the last new customer for the A340? There haven't been many in recent years.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:15 am

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 18):
Now they are paying the price with the residual value of A340s plunging.

Any source for this?

Quoting Mirrodie (Reply 27):

SO why is it that Dasualt is working on the Falcon 7X ( I think) another trijet?

Is'nt that just a new version of the Dassault 2000? Anyway, private jets are dirrecent to airliners. A few percentage in fuel burn may not a big deal to the average billionaire.

[Edited 2006-08-11 20:36:26]
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:22 am

Quoting Mirrodie (Reply 27):

on the inside, I find it comparable to the 777.

You know, while we are discussing it....many here call the MD-11 a failure. Based on what??? Its still used todayand its a great a/c.


Further, this blows my mind. most of hte trijets are on their way out, right? 3 engines, for reasons unknown to me, are a PITA and 4 holers are not as efficent as newer 2 holers.

On the inside, A340 is a great aircraft. While 777 allows slightly wider seats, and is a higher, wider, airier cabin, A340 is slightly quieter, and has the nicer 2-4-2 seating arrangement vs 3-3-3, 3-4-2, or 2-5-2.

Not many MD-11s are still in pax service, though it is a first rate freighter. Servicing a tri-jet commercial aircraft like what dassault makes, the #2 engine isn't that high to service. On an MD-11, DC-10, or L-1011, the #2 engine is nearly 30 ft above the ground, making it far more of a PITA to service than an aircraft with the engines hanging down under the wings.

And 4 engine aircraft do have inherent advantages in efficiency, all things being equal, for a number of reasons. We aren't talking about a huge difference in efficiency, but enough of one to be noticed.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 29):

The A340 is still a good plane. It is operating for many airlines and will continue to fly for many years. However it isn't a great enough plane for airlines to order it. And like I said, airlines really have filled their needs for a 250-300 capacity plane. Sales for the 777-200 are really low now too. Unfortunately the A346 isn't selling as well as the 773ER.

The A340 is a great aircraft. It's always been a great aircraft. New sales at this point are mostly 772LR, 773ER, and occasional 772ER. The biggest thing wrong with the A340 is the 777. If the 777 had never happened, the A340 would be considdered the gold standard. It's not that A340 isn't great, it's that Boeing hit one out of the park on 777.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
sjot
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue May 28, 2002 11:42 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:55 am

The United States is a decentralized marketplace ... plenty of airlines operating plenty of flights = smaller aircraft required.

This is why most domestic flights in the US use 737-sized aircraft and not 747-sized aircraft.

The big twins can more than handle the operational requirements of US carriers ... this is why there are so few US 747s these days.

The A340 with 4 engines can do nothing that the 777 can't do with 2 engines ...

The real problem is that Airbus concentrated on promoting the A340 for long haul and not the A330 ... had they targeted the A330 for real long-haul ops (from the beginning) then they might have had a larger marketshare (American uses plenty of A300s)
 
pygmalion
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:41 am

Biggest issue is 4 engines, 4 engines are 2wice as expensive to maintain as two are.
When you need to do overhauls, you have to do 4 of them not 2. The most expensive part of a modern jet is the engines representing over 60-70% of the purchase price. Maintaining those expensive engines is also expensive. Though there is some relief in that a A340 has smaller engines than a A330... the part counts are still similar and the engines and the maintenance are not half as much. So with the advent of EROPS with twins, 4 holers will always lose out in the operating cost equation to the 2 holers. Unless you need more of them for sizing reasons... all new aircraft will be twins.
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:53 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 30):
Quoting Baron95 (Reply 18):
Now they are paying the price with the residual value of A340s plunging.

Any source for this?

Are you serious? It is hard not to stumble across another article mentioning the plunging in A340 residual values. Just google it http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=A340+residual+value .

Quoting Mirrodie (Reply 27):
SO why is it that Dasualt is working on the Falcon 7X ( I think) another trijet?

Why to trijets continue to have life in the small jet market?

They don't wake up. Dassault is just as obstinate as MD was in maintaing a tri-jet architecture and they are paying and will pay the price for it in declining market share. Global Express and G550 are the gold standard in large/long-haul biz jets and Dassault is the odd-man out. Just like MD and the MD-11 were. They will linger and die unless they change

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 28):
Then, how can you explain the general better financial shape of the European and Asian carriers?
FYI SQ, BA and AF are the world's # 1, 4 and 5 operators of the 777, 2 of them also operate the 340 and all of them are financially doing well...

Simple. Their markets are much more regulated and face less stiff competition. Singapore has EXACTLY ONE Airport. The UK has FIVE of significance and one mega airport where a single airline BA controls 50% of gates and flights. Don't you get it? Don't you get it? If you are allowed to exercise near monopoly in your market (by intentional acts of your government and your voters), you could fly empty 747s and still make money.

During regulation, US airlines routinely flew half empty 747s cross country and made money. Now they can barelly break even flying a packed 737 or A319 cross country. That is competition to you.

If Europe and Asia deregulate to the extent the US did (not really possible since none of these countries save Chine and perhaps India are large enough to support multiple relevant airports) you'd see average aircraft size plunge.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
mirrodie
Posts: 6789
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 3:33 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Sat Aug 12, 2006 5:43 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 30):
Anyway, private jets are dirrecent to airliners. A few percentage in fuel burn may not a big deal to the average billionaire.

WHile I was not privvy to that arguement, I do understand the point about the access to the 3rd engine.

And thanks for the info regarding hte MD-11
Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Sat Aug 12, 2006 12:51 pm

You will not see any new planes with a legacy tri-jet architecture (with the middle engine stuck in the vertical stabilizer.

Fuel efficiency demands very high bybass on engines, which demands huge fan/nacele diamater which is incompatible with the legacy tri-jet architecture.

It is a bi$@# for maintenance access.

It necessitates a much heavier structure (because of higher bending moment than wing mounted engines, and a bunch of other factors).

The world belongs to tiwn-engine airliners, with the occasional quad for very special missions.

Now, a new architecture like BWB with a row of aft-mounted engines (with freedom to chose 2,3,4) that can work. But we are a decade+ away from that.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
Adria
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 7:53 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Sat Aug 12, 2006 10:27 pm

Quoting ThePRGuy (Reply 3):
Heavy
Burns more fuel than A330
On some routes, capacity is not needed, and if it is, 777 can take care of it



Quoting Sjot (Reply 31):
The A340 with 4 engines can do nothing that the 777 can't do with 2 engines ...

well the A340s take-off performance is far better in hot and high conditions and also what nobody wrote is that the A343s total fuel consumption is lower than that of a 772ER.
 
N160LH
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 5:28 pm

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Sun Aug 13, 2006 4:34 am

Quoting Adria (Reply 36):
well the A340s take-off performance is far better in hot and high conditions and also what nobody wrote is that the A343s total fuel consumption is lower than that of a 772ER.

In my experience with the A-340 (AF) in ATL (ATL = HOT+HUMID) is that the T/O performance is not even close to that of the 777... AF afternoon A-340 to CDG was always weight restricted, so all the cargo that was booked on that flight either went to the AF 777 that left in the evening, or it was re-booked on DL flights to CDG. And DL's 777 flight to CDG (that left only an hour or so after the AF flight) was always packed with Freight. I would have to guess your right about the Fuel consumption because the 340 is lighter and has a much greater range (not than 777-200LR, but thats not a real fair comparison to A-340-200 or -300). However, due to my personal experiences, I will have to disagree with you about the 340 having better T/O performance.

A340-300 - Operating empty 129,800kg (286,150lb), max takeoff 260,000kg (573,200lb).

777-200ER - Empty 142,430kg (314,000lb) with 374kN/84,000lb engines, 143,015kg (315,300lb) with 400kN/90,000lb engines, max takeoff optionally 263,085kg (580,000lb) or 286,897kg (632,500lb).

-160
"I do alright up in the air, its down on the ground that I tend to mess up..."
 
Adria
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 7:53 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Sun Aug 13, 2006 5:22 am

Quoting N160LH (Reply 37):
In my experience with the A-340 (AF) in ATL (ATL = HOT+HUMID) is that the T/O performance is not even close to that of the 777... AF afternoon A-340 to CDG was always weight restricted, so all the cargo that was booked on that flight either went to the AF 777 that left in the evening, or it was re-booked on DL flights to CDG. And DL's 777 flight to CDG (that left only an hour or so after the AF flight) was always packed with Freight. I would have to guess your right about the Fuel consumption because the 340 is lighter and has a much greater range (not than 777-200LR, but thats not a real fair comparison to A-340-200 or -300). However, due to my personal experiences, I will have to disagree with you about the 340 having better T/O performance.

A340-300 - Operating empty 129,800kg (286,150lb), max takeoff 260,000kg (573,200lb).

777-200ER - Empty 142,430kg (314,000lb) with 374kN/84,000lb engines, 143,015kg (315,300lb) with 400kN/90,000lb engines, max takeoff optionally 263,085kg (580,000lb) or 286,897kg (632,500lb).

-160

well in the Airliner World November 99 edition Vellay pinted out that the A340 is better for hot and high than the 777 (that's why the A343 is sent to SXM because it can fly non-stop to Paris fully loaded, even the 744 cannot do that) and one of the reasons the former Swissair ordered the A346 is that it has better take-off performance in the summer than the 773. Also the A343 is the only widebody flying from Lhasa(source: Aero International 09/2001).
 
Molykote
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:21 pm

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:04 am

Quoting Adria (Reply 38):
well in the Airliner World November 99 edition Vellay pinted out that the A340 is better for hot and high than the 777 (that's why the A343 is sent to SXM because it can fly non-stop to Paris fully loaded, even the 744 cannot do that)

The SXM example you cite is due the the unique terrain at SXM. When the "one engine out" scenario is considered at SXM the A340 is the preferred airplane at this particular airport.

In 90%+ of operating flights the 777 is a better performing airplane. I don't have routing data to support my "90%+" statement but barring odd circumstances as above it's a matter of basic physics/performance (assuming all engines are operating!).
Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
 
Adria
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 7:53 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:18 am

4 engines are better for hot and high and this has been discussed many times in the past here on a.net.

But what is interesting (and I wasn't aware of that) is that the A343s total fuel consumption is lower compared to the 772. I wonder why the A346 wasn't build that way.
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:27 am

The A343 doesn't have very good climb performance and it was never designed to. It's low thrust engines mean it burns less in flight than if it were to have bigger engines, but more on take off. This means generally longer the A343 flies the more efficient it gets compared to other jets lke the A330. 12-14 hours flying i belive is it's optimal sector length - Clever concept really.

The A345 and A346 i believe have a better T/O performance than their 777 counterpart however, but their inflight consuption poor.
 
F14ATomcat
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:26 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:44 pm

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 4):
n general US Airlines at the time of selection had a better relationship with Boeing. Airbus was yet to be as proven and experiences with airlines such as Delta's A310s weren't doing it any favours. Then factor in Bethune's relationship with Boeing, that led to the A340 order cancellation, and the Superfan fiasco stopped NW's order. So that's ruled out DL, CO and NW for starters. Then you've got AA and UA, both have had a strong relationship with Boeing over the years and would have definately favoured Boeing offerings. Not to say that the 777's performance merit's never came into it. And although US Ordered the A330, their east coast hubs and non-existant transpacific market meant they had no demand for such range.

It's only the relationship with Boeing? Nope. Not even close. Can you say ETOPS? These American Airlines were fragmenting routes and introducing the 767 transatlantic at that time. It was never going to be a big consideration for american airlines. If anyone should have any doubts on this ask yourself one question, "Where is the new 4 engine offering in this category from Airbus?"
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:52 pm

Quoting COSPN (Reply 20):
CO 2 engines 2 save fuel...........CO is a 2 engine airline

Yes and Yes. So is Southwest and Ryanair and Easyjet and Adria airways and a lot of others
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:29 am

Quoting N160LH (Reply 37):
340 is lighter and has a much greater range

While the A343 is lighter than the 772ER, the 772ER carries more passengers so it is lighter per passenger than the A343.

With regard to range, the 772ER outranges the A343, 7750 nm to 7400 nm.

Quoting Adria (Reply 36):
what nobody wrote is that the A343s total fuel consumption is lower than that of a 772ER.

I'm not sure what your data source is. The 772ER burns about 5% to 7% less fuel on a given mission than the A343 while carrying about 15% more passengers. This gives the 772ER a 20% to 22% better fuel burn per passenger.

The resulting lower operating costs per seat coupled with better range capability are primary reasons why the 772ER has outsold the A342/3 by 70% (425 to 247).
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
Adria
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 7:53 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:11 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 44):
I'm not sure what your data source is. The 772ER burns about 5% to 7% less fuel on a given mission than the A343 while carrying about 15% more passengers. This gives the 772ER a 20% to 22% better fuel burn per passenger.

I was talking to an aviation engineer and also made a search on a.net a while ago so I suggest that you do it yourself. The 777 is actually larger and heavier thus it has a greater TOTAL (in tons) fuel consumption. To get from A to B the A343 needs less fuel than the 772ER.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 41):
The A345 and A346 i believe have a better T/O performance than their 777 counterpart however, but their inflight consuption poor.

That's why I wonder why didn't they make the A345/6 the same way as with the A343. The A343 is actually a brilliant design, making a quad as fuel efficient as a twin.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 44):
The resulting lower operating costs per seat coupled with better range capability are primary reasons why the 772ER has outsold the A342/3 by 70% (425 to 247).

Ok you'll have to explain how did you get those 70% out of those numbers...
And one of the main reasons the 777 outsold the A340 is that Boeing made it larger (It's the same with the A350 compared to the 787)
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:38 am

As any twin has to be able to complete its takeoff on a single engine, the thrust available for takeoff is around 200% of the minimum. On a 4 holer - the required thrust is 133% of the minimum at takeoff. Yes, on climb the GE90's have to back off from maximum thrust to prevent overheating so the power levels are lower, however the available thrust on climb is usually substantially more on a twin than a 4 engine craft.

This difference is somewhat reduced as Boeing optimises for cruise flight while Airbus optimises more on the climb portion so Boeing jets require more thrust to climb for the same weight than does Airbus.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:05 am

Quoting Adria (Reply 45):
I was talking to an aviation engineer and also made a search on a.net a while ago so I suggest that you do it yourself. The 777 is actually larger and heavier thus it has a greater TOTAL (in tons) fuel consumption. To get from A to B the A343 needs less fuel than the 772ER.

OK, I searched a.net. Here's what the CFO of Air France says. Remember, AF flies both airplanes, so he ought to know.

787 Has $3.5 Million Per Year Advantage Over A350 (by BoomBoom Mar 4 2006 in Civil Aviation)

and http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/showthread.php?mode=hybrid&t=77802

The quote from both sources is the same and is taken from the Wall Street Journal.

Air France, another major Airbus customer but also a big 777 buyer, is one of few carriers that has flown both A340s and 777s on the same routes. Chief Financial Officer Philippe Calavia said a first-generation A340-300 from the 1990s burns about 15% to 20% more fuel per seat than a 777 of the same vintage. "It's more costly to maintain four engines than two," he said, adding that Air France expects "to further increase the proportion of 777s in our fleet." (WSJ 1/16/2006)

While it's conceivable that the A343 could burn less total fuel on a given mission, it's carrying fewer seats than the 772ER on that same mission. Therefore it's fuel burn per passenger is higher.

Quoting Adria (Reply 45):
The A343 is actually a brilliant design, making a quad as fuel efficient as a twin.

What twin are you refering to? The A343 is less fuel efficient than either the A333 or the 772ER.

Quoting Adria (Reply 45):
Ok you'll have to explain how did you get those 70% out of those numbers...

Simple, the 772ER has sold 425 frames, the A342/3 has sold 247.
The difference between the two is 178.
178 is 72% of 247.
There the 772ER has sold 72% more frames than the A342/3.

Quoting Adria (Reply 45):
And one of the main reasons the 777 outsold the A340 is that Boeing made it larger

That's odd. Over comparable time periods, smaller airplanes generally sell in larger numbers than larger airplanes.

[Edited 2006-08-13 19:10:21]
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:34 am

Quoting Adria (Reply 45):
And one of the main reasons the 777 outsold the A340 is that Boeing made it larger (It's the same with the A350 compared to the 787)

Boeing didn't just build the 777-200 arbitarily larger than the A343. Boeing more properly gauged the market than Airbus, not suprising given the unprecedented customer input that when into the 777 design process.

There is zero basis to make the same comparison between the A350 and 787.

Quoting Adria (Reply 45):
That's why I wonder why didn't they make the A345/6 the same way as with the A343.

Airbus stretched the A340 platform beyond it's optimal limits.

The narrow A340 fuselage required reinforcement to reach the lenghts of the A345/A346. Airbus had to build a stronger wing which also added a great deal of weight. The A345/A346 are smaller than their 777 counterparts, but weigh tens of thousands of pounds more in structural weight.

Quoting Adria (Reply 45):
The A343 is actually a brilliant design, making a quad as fuel efficient as a twin.

It isn't brilliant, it's a compromise.

A compromise which caused the market as a whole to reject the A340 in favor of the 777, and subsequently led half-a-dozen opperators to select the 777 after in-service experience with the A340.
 
Adria
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 7:53 am

RE: Why Not A340 For US Carriers?

Mon Aug 14, 2006 6:22 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 47):
Air France, another major Airbus customer but also a big 777 buyer, is one of few carriers that has flown both A340s and 777s on the same routes. Chief Financial Officer Philippe Calavia said a first-generation A340-300 from the 1990s burns about 15% to 20% more fuel per seat than a 777 of the same vintage. "It's more costly to maintain four engines than two," he said, adding that Air France expects "to further increase the proportion of 777s in our fleet." (WSJ 1/16/2006)

I wasn't talking about that...

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 47):
While it's conceivable that the A343 could burn less total fuel on a given mission, it's carrying fewer seats than the 772ER on that same mission. Therefore it's fuel burn per passenger is higher.

...and now you finaly got it (but then again you just say what I said before). As I pointed out I meant TOTAL fuel burn on a flight.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 47):
Simple, the 772ER has sold 425 frames, the A342/3 has sold 247.
The difference between the two is 178.
178 is 72% of 247.
There the 772ER has sold 72% more frames than the A342/3.

sorry I thought you meant the market split...

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 47):
That's odd. Over comparable time periods, smaller airplanes generally sell in larger numbers than larger airplanes.

Well I don't thinks so. One of the main advantiges of the A332 over the 763 is that it can carry 20 passengers more. Airbus also put this fact on their ads. Also the 738 is selling better than the 734 since the 734 was not competitive against the A320.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 50):
You don't trust the AF CFO?

Airline CEOs and CFOs tell what they need to tell so if you believe everything you read than well...
Well I remember how the Aeromexico CEO stated somewhere that he doesn't want an warmed up aircraft (refering to the former A350 design), but on the other hand they ordered the 737NG. So what do you believe?

Quoting Dfwrevolution (Reply 48):
There is zero basis to make the same comparison between the A350 and 787.

What I meant was that Airbus is doing the same with the A350 that Boeing did with the 777 and the 738. They built a slightly bigger competitor which can carry some passengers more or some more cargo or it can fly farther.