NYC777
Topic Author
Posts: 5065
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:01 pm

Randy's Blog...Randy Tinseth took a parting shot at the A340....

http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2011/11/goodbye_to_you.html
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
 
KPDX
Posts: 2373
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:04 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:09 pm

I realize it's partially his job to talk trash and hype things, but I wish the guy would STFU. Take the high road, and do more to help Boeing improve it's current state.   
View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
 
gunsontheroof
Posts: 3226
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:30 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:15 pm

Quoting KPDX (Reply 1):
I realize it's partially his job to talk trash and hype things, but I wish the guy would STFU. Take the high road, and do more to help Boeing improve it's current state.

Neither side is exactly known for "taking the high road" when it comes to publicity. The A340 ads mentioned in the post are an example of Airbus doing the exact same thing. For that matter, rivals in pretty much every industry imaginable are known to do this from time to time--I don't see why it's a big deal if the heavy hitters in aerospace do the same.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:15 pm

Totally tasteless and from a marketing standpoint a glaring lack of professionalism. You don't sell your wares by trashing your opponent. He would have done far better if he had made scant reference to the end of the A340 line by talking up the 777 and what a huge success it turned out to be. It could have been as simple as "With Airbus shuttering the A340 line, Boeing's gamble on the 777 has proven to be the right one." And then he could have gone on and talked up the 777 and all of its capabilities and successes. Instead he takes shots at Airbus' A340 campaign history in what seems to be a lot of bitter blood and a personal vendetta.

I would have expected more from someone so senior at Boeing and so far above the radar. Especially since Boeing hasn't exactly made perfect and fault-free steps lately.
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 3935
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:25 pm

Yeah, several years ago I was told that Airbus was pulling the same scare tactics with a customer in a 777 vs A340 sales campaign, as noted in Randy's blog. You know, the 777 would fall out the sky into the ocean because it has 2 engines. An A340 would be safer. The customer supposedly said, "Really, than what's the A350 all about?" Airbus supposedly said, "Oh gee, uh um um....well that's not for you...".

The 777-300ER won the sales campaign, and they probably find it to be the best airplane in their fleet just like many airlines do.

CO was furious too. IIRC correctly, they wrote a letter to Airbus stating how offended they were. Something about while they don't have Airbus airplanes in their fleet now, you can bet they never will as long as Airbus keeps that B.S. scare tactics up. IIRC, Airbus wisely and quickly canned that advertising campaign.

The safety record of the 777, 767 and 757 on ETOPS routes speaks for itself. Flawless. In fact of those three models, there has only ever been one fatal accident overall among them in 30 years due to the fault of the airplane, and that was rapidly corrected (Lauda 767 thrust reverser incident out of BKK).

In the Ethics training that we get, we are directed to never degrade the competitor's products, especially not with customers. I assume that goes all the way up to the top Executives. (Note, I'm commenting on the competitor's previous tactics, not the airplanes).
 
bennett123
Posts: 7440
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:30 pm

Just another salesman, what do you expect.

Cmon Randy, tell us about the B747-500, (I think that was the B747-400 stretch), how about the Sonic Cruiser, how about the B787 being how much delayed.

It is all about taking a poke and hoping that no one will ask the ackward questions about your own products.

A vs B, (not a lot between them).

How about telling it how it is.

A and B both build great planes, sometimes A has the edge, sometimes B does. Sometimes it depends on commonality or exactly what your requirements are, (range, load, cargo etc).
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6013
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:37 pm

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 5):
A and B both build great planes, sometimes A has the edge, sometimes B does. Sometimes it depends on commonality or exactly what your requirements are, (range, load, cargo etc).

  
Spot on!

If only members of this site would also heed this sometimes.  

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1491
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:10 am

Cheap and nasty comments, that have no affect on the opposition, but make the person saying them look small.

By all means, sing the praise of the 777, advertise its great success and strong sales. And hope nobody mentions the 7late7 and 748i fiascos.
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13762
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:13 am

Quoting redflyer (Reply 3):
Totally tasteless and from a marketing standpoint a glaring lack of professionalism. You don't sell your wares by trashing your opponent.

"I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC..."

Apple became the most valuable public company in the world and part of their strategy was trashing competing products in comparison to their own.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
hatbutton
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:39 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:15 am

I read everyone's response here before reading the blog post and I have to say, the responses are much harsher than the words Randy used.

Sure, you can interpret his tone if you'd like, but there's not a ton in there he didn't say that isn't fact. The A340 failed to produce the sales Airbus hoped. It also failed to be a competitive machine on the cost side when compared to the 777, and thus, airlines are dumping them as fast as they can. Airbus also proved itself wrong that 4 engines are better just by looking at their A330 sales success and now moving on to the A350.

I don't see why everyone is fuming over what he has said. Yes, he's a VP, but this is a blog which carries a little different tone than does an official press release. The fact of the matter is, Airbus tried hard to sell the A340 based on what could be considered questioning the safety of 2 engine aircraft and they failed. Not only that, but they got into the 2 engine aircraft game with the A350. I don't see what the fuss is about.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23074
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:16 am

Trash talking is just part of the game and each side's loyalists will see their side as "playing clean" and other as "playing dirty". That, also, is part of the game.

Samsung's latest ad for the Galaxy smartphone takes shots at Apple iPhone fans for standing in line for their phone. Android fans laugh at how "sheeplike" iPhone fans are, while iPhone fans retort that nobody waits in line for an Android phone.

[Edited 2011-11-28 16:31:19]
 
neutronstar73
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:57 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:22 am

I see nothing wrong with his blog post. II think it is part of the game. I thought the same when Airbus had the 4 Engines 4 Long haul ads.....although I thought they were a bit odd considering they had an A330 flying all over the oceans at the time......

It's just two companies (unofficially in Boeing's case...officially in Airbus' case) taking swipes at each other. No big deal. You expect them to say "Please! Buy our competitor's aircraft!" ???
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 1022
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:24 am

I don't think Boeing ever did anything about its competition as cynical, lying, and dishonest as Airbus and the alleged great safety of 4 engines as opposed to 2.

ps - now if your are talking about cynical, lying and dishonest lobbying in the US Boeing takes the cake.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
irshava
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:11 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:38 am

What do you honestly expect him to say? "Look at how great this machine is, its a shame to let it go"? It's only natural (being a Boeing worker) for him to point out the "flaws" of the program and how incompetent the design was. I also love how he pointed out figures while (although just coming out) the 747-8i has only 36.... and I honestly doubt its going to go over 150 (and even that is pushing it way too far - for the passenger version I mean)

I wonder why he doesn't want to mention that...
“If you were born without wings, do nothing to prevent them from growing.”
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:43 am

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 8):
Apple became the most valuable public company in the world and part of their strategy was trashing competing products in comparison to their own.

Apple parodied PC in their ads and it was done in good humor. Big difference. Now, if Apple took out an ad and porked the PC in a matter-of-fact manner as Randy did to Airbus, it would come across as tasteless and would certainly not have had the affect it did. But, let's for the sake of argument say that Randy's article and Apple's ad are one-and-the-same - Randy's article comes across as downright boorish in my opinion.

Boeing's marketing folks need to stick to what works: touting the great airplanes that Boeing makes. And inasmuch as Airbus did the same with their "4 engines 4 long haul" and "4 engines for safety" campaigns, I think Boeing taking the high road would portend far better in this instance. And I doubt Airbus will ever play that card again anyway.
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13762
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:49 am

Quoting redflyer (Reply 14):
Apple parodied PC in their ads and it was done in good humor. Big difference. Now, if Apple took out an ad and porked the PC in a matter-of-fact manner as Randy did to Airbus, it would come across as tasteless and would certainly not have had the affect it did.

You didn't watch all the ads, or read all of the Apple copy then. Because they did that sort of thing.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11099
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:57 am

Quoting redflyer (Reply 3):
"With Airbus shuttering the A340 line, Boeing's gamble on the 777 has proven to be the right one."

Randy blows a ton of smoke at people who don't know any better, but with this point he is absolutely right. Boeing took a huge gamble on ETOPS and it came up aces. A poorly timed crash in the 1990s or even just even more excessive government regulation and the landscape could look a lot different. The MD-11 succumbed a lot earlier, due to its inability to deliver. Airbus did better, since the A340 was at least competitive for a significant period of time and they had the A330 to fall back on (which Randy conveniently forgot to mention).

By the way, is "throwing in the towel" the new euphemism for innovating? Boeing "threw in the towel" on props and launched the 707. Apple "threw in the towel" and started making iPods, etc.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
UALWN
Posts: 2176
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:14 am

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 8):
Apple became the most valuable public company in the world and part of their strategy was trashing competing products in comparison to their own.

In that case, deservedly...

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 9):
The A340 failed to produce the sales Airbus hoped. It also failed to be a competitive machine on the cost side when compared to the 777, and thus, airlines are dumping them as fast as they can.

Are they? Who? LH? IB? SA? LX? LA? VS? TP? EY?
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:03 am

Quoting UALWN (Reply 17):
Are they? Who? LH? IB? SA? LX? LA? VS? TP? EY?

I'm guessing he's referring to the hundreds of 787's and A350's that were ordered, partly as replacements for A340's.

-Dave
-Dave
 
Flighty
Posts: 7677
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:20 am

"Only" 375 widebody quads? Only? This guy must think himself pretty large to say that. Hmmm. How is the 747 selling?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23074
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:31 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 19):
"Only" 375 widebody quads? Only? This guy must think himself pretty large to say that. Hmmm. How is the 747 selling?

Since Randy seems to be referring to total orders for all models, that would be 1524 and climbing.

Now if you want to artificially parse the reporting criteria to make some kind of point...  Silly

[Edited 2011-11-28 19:33:23]
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 4775
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:31 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 19):
"Only" 375 widebody quads? Only? This guy must think himself pretty large to say that. Hmmm. How is the 747 selling?

Since 1987? 760 orders.
 
wn700driver
Posts: 1475
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 10:55 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:35 am

Quoting redflyer (Reply 3):
as "With Airbus shuttering the A340 line, Boeing's gamble on the 777 has proven to be the right one." And then he could have gone on and talked up the 777 and all of its capabilities and successes.

Perhaps, but you would never want to refer to your own product as a "gamble", regardless of the eventual success.
Base not your happiness on the deeds of others, for what is given can be taken away. No Hope = No Fear
 
hatbutton
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:39 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:36 am

Quoting UALWN (Reply 17):

Are they? Who? LH? IB? SA? LX? LA? VS? TP? EY?

TG will retire all 10 of their A340s by 2017. I believe they received their first back in 2005 so many of these aircraft won't yet be 10 years old.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...rcraft-over-next-six-years-359423/

IB says they will start retiring their 19 A340-300s once they start receiving A330s in 2015.

http://web02.aviationweek.com/aw/mst...line=Upgrading%20Widebody%20Cabins

VS is getting rid of their 5 A340-300s starting in 2013.

EK will phase out all 8 of their A340-300s in 2012.

QR will phase out their 4 A340-600s in the next few years

http://www.ameinfo.com/281920.html

SA is in the process of removing 5 A340-200s.

AC dropped the last of their 15 A340s back in 2008.

LA will retire their 5 A340s in 2016 when they get 787s.

The only models that seem to be kept for now are the -500s for their range and the -600s because the seating capacity probably makes up for some of the higher costs. These are just some examples of airlines who have made plans to retire these planes long before the end of their service life.
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2601
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:40 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 19):
"Only" 375 widebody quads? Only? This guy must think himself pretty large to say that. Hmmm. How is the 747 selling?

The 747 has sold over 1500 and counting.

Even if you were only to take into account the orders for the 747 from 1987 onwards - from when the A340 was first offered for sale - you still have 763 to 375.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
StuckInCA
Posts: 1618
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:42 am

Quoting UALWN (Reply 17):
In that case, deservedly...

Sigh. 4 engines better than 2?
 
jetblueguy22
Posts: 2532
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:26 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:43 am

I really don't think he bashed them that bad. I mean obviously he is going to hype up his own aircraft. No point in saying well the A340 does this this and this that ours can't do. I mean that Airbus ad of the ocean is pretty tasteless, but I don't think this is as bad. Maybe I'm missing something?
Blue
Look at sweatpants guy. This is a 90 million dollar aircraft, not a Tallahassee strip club
 
MoltenRock
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:35 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:45 am

Quoting redflyer (Reply 3):
Totally tasteless and from a marketing standpoint a glaring lack of professionalism. You don't sell your wares by trashing your opponent.

Agreed. As someone who is involved in sales and marketing daily, I never, ever, trash my competition. If you feel compelled to trash your competition, it just shows how weak you are vs. your competitor. For instance, I know that Airbus aircraft are wider than Boeing aircraft almost universally when comparing generation to generation airframes. I would never say as an Airbus marketer / salesman, that my plane is "better" than Boeing because Boeing aircraft are smaller / narrower / tighter. Instead, I would just focus on my product, the A320, and sell how much wider it is, how much comfortable it is, etc... compared to a competitor. There's no need to bring up the name of your competitor. Only focus on the positives of your own product, plain and simple, really. There's no need to trash the competition if you have any sales skills at all.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 4775
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:47 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 24):
Even if you were only to take into account the orders for the 747 from 1987 onwards - from when the A340 was first offered for sale - you still have 763 to 375.

It should also be noted, before anyone goes down that path, that the A340 only out delivered the 747 for 6 years. 2003-2006 and 2009-2010 (and in 2010 Boeing had no 747 product to deliver, final 744 delivered in 2009 and 748 not yet ready)
 
Confuscius
Posts: 3568
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:53 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 24):
The 747 has sold over 1500 and counting.

That's a lot!

Another interesting stat is 777 v. 3 and 4 engine non-VLA widebodies.

777 - 1,295 (orders)

A340/DC-10/MD-11/L-1011 - 1,270 (delivered)

[Edited 2011-11-28 19:56:11]
Ain't I a stinker?
 
dfambro
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:32 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:02 am

Not cool Randy. Pretty pointless to be complaining, again, about almost decade old marketing of a plane that was only modestly successful. Of all the things you could write about the A340 as it departs the stage, he chose marketing tactics??!!

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 8):
"I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC..."

Apple became the most valuable public company in the world and part of their strategy was trashing competing products in comparison to their own.

That campaign turned me off from Apple. For one thine, I have a lot more in common with Mr. PC than Mr. Effortlessly-studmuffin Apple. Those ads were full of low blows.
 
TravellerPlus
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 9:45 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:16 am

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 26):
I mean that Airbus ad of the ocean is pretty tasteless

I disagree. I regularly fly the world's most isolated routes from Australia/New Zealand to Africa or South America. I am flying over oceans just like that, skirting the Antarctic, as far as 4 (or more) from the nearest alternative airport. The A340 is one of the few aircraft that can fly those routes. So, from my perspective the advert is a statement of fact.
What goes around comes around....unless your luggage is not on the carousel...
 
jetblueguy22
Posts: 2532
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:26 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:22 am

Quoting TravellerPlus (Reply 31):
The A340 is one of the few aircraft that can fly those routes. So, from my perspective the advert is a statement of fact.

My interpretation of the ad was more that it was safer to fly the 4 engined A340 than th3 2 engined 777. Though aren't ETOPS rules changing soon to include 4 holers too?
Blue
Look at sweatpants guy. This is a 90 million dollar aircraft, not a Tallahassee strip club
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:45 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
Quoting Flighty (Reply 19):
"Only" 375 widebody quads? Only? This guy must think himself pretty large to say that. Hmmm. How is the 747 selling?

Since Randy seems to be referring to total orders for all models, that would be 1524 and climbing.

Is the IL-86 and IL-96 included in that count?

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 7):
Cheap and nasty comments, that have no affect on the opposition, but make the person saying them look small.

By all means, sing the praise of the 777, advertise its great success and strong sales. And hope nobody mentions the 7late7 and 748i fiascos.

  
Bring back the Concorde
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2601
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:48 am

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 27):
Airbus aircraft are wider than Boeing aircraft almost universally when comparing generation to generation airframes.

  

A340 is narrower than the 777.

Quoting TravellerPlus (Reply 31):
I regularly fly the world's most isolated routes from Australia/New Zealand to Africa or South America. I am flying over oceans just like that, skirting the Antarctic, as far as 4 (or more) from the nearest alternative airport.

If regulations permitted the operation of twins below 72 degrees latitude, I'd be willing to fly a 777 on those routes.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 32):
My interpretation of the ad was more that it was safer to fly the 4 engined A340 than th3 2 engined 777.

That was my interpretation of the advertisement as well. Neither the A340 nor the 777 has been involved in a fatal accident. As such, neither one is safer than the other. Saying that 4 engines are safer, therefore, is misleading.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 32):
Though aren't ETOPS rules changing soon to include 4 holers too?

As far as I know, yes, although to be fair - at the time when those advertisements were being run, there was no plan to include quads in the ETOPS restrictions.

[Edited 2011-11-28 20:50:33]
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:22 am

Randy, naturally, neglects to mention the 330 side of the 330/340 program, which has been beating the pants off of every competing product that Boeing was able to offer pre-787 (including the non-ER 777-200). Combined, the 330/340 program has sold 1,549 aircraft compared to the 1,295 of the 777. Granted, not all of those 330 orders were competing against the 777, but there's no doubt in my mind that Airbus is very happy with the way that program has gone.

Saying the 777 is far better than the 340 without mentioning the 330 is like saying the 340 is far better than the 777-200 and 777-300 without looking at the other models in the line.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 34):
A340 is narrower than the 777.

Actually, on a per-seat basis, the A340 is slightly wider (in the typical 8-abreast configuration) than the 777 (in the typical 9-abreast configuration)

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
AngMoh
Posts: 739
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:03 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:22 am

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 23):

The only models that seem to be kept for now are the -500s for their range and the -600s because the seating capacity probably makes up for some of the higher costs. These are just some examples of airlines who have made plans to retire these planes long before the end of their service life.

And some airlines (like SQ) are starting to replace their 777s so anyone can give examples which suit them. Planes get replaced all the time - be happy that happens. In a few years A388 and 77Ws start to get replaced because something better is on the market. I am looking forward to what is next.

And I don't consider the A340 a failure. It definately was not a runaway success, but a failure is something completely different. Don't forget times have changed: the 767 was a success and sold "only" over a 1000 units over almost 20 years while the 787 sold 800 even before the first one was in service.
 
neutronstar73
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:57 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:42 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Actually, on a per-seat basis, the A340 is slightly wider (in the typical 8-abreast configuration) than the 777 (in the typical 9-abreast configuration)

-Mir

This "Airbus is wider than Boeing" argument started by MoltenRock and perpetuated is clearly erroneous. This is getting funny........

From SeatGuru:

V Australia 777-300ER Pitch Width
Business Class: 77.0" 23.0" 35 Full Flat seats
Economy Class: 32.0" 18.8" 288 seats (9 abreast)
Prem Economy Class: 38.0" 19.5" 40 seats

Thais Airways International A340-600
Business Class: 60.0" 21.5" 60 Lie-flat seats
Economy Class: 32-34.0" 17.0" 199 seats (8 abreast)
First Class: 78.0" 22.5" 8 Flat bed sleeping pods

British Airways 777-200
Club World Class: 73.0" 20.0" 36 Flat bed seats + 2 crew rests More Info
World Traveler Class: 31.0" 17.5" 212 seats More Info (9 abreast)
World Traveler Plus Class: 38.0" 18.5" 24 seats with 2 more inches of recline than standard

Lufthansa A340-600
Business Class: 60.0" 20.0" 66 Angled Lie Flat Seats; 165 degrees recline; 78
Economy Class: 31.0" 17.0" 279 seats; 113 degrees recline

I think these facts will set the record straight.
 
hatbutton
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:39 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:49 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Saying the 777 is far better than the 340 without mentioning the 330 is like saying the 340 is far better than the 777-200 and 777-300 without looking at the other models in the line.

Yes but it was Airbus's insistence that 4 was better than 2 that caused the response. Airbus is also guilty of excluding the A330 in their advertisements and that's what probably makes me laugh the most about all this bitterness towards this blog post. He's not allowed to bash the A340 a little bit for acting like 4 is better than 2 when Airbus themselves chose to go with the A350 and 2 engines and sells the A330 hard against the 777?

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Randy, naturally, neglects to mention the 330 side of the 330/340 program, which has been beating the pants off of every competing product that Boeing was able to offer pre-787 (including the non-ER 777-200). Combined, the 330/340 program has sold 1,549 aircraft compared to the 1,295 of the 777.

This is misleading. Why include the A330 and A340 together? Just because both aircraft have generally the same mission as the 777? If that's your basis then you should include other Boeing aircraft like the 747 and 767 during the same time frame. Because those aircraft compete regularly with the A330/A340 on the same missions. Since 1987 there have been about 700 deliveries for the 767. As someone mentioned earlier there were over 700 for the 747. Add that to the 777 order total and you have about 2700 long haul aircraft which I'm failing to understand how they got the pants beat off them by the A330/A340.
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:50 am

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 37):
From SeatGuru:

Well, now you're getting into airline-specific seat layouts. Some might choose to give more room to the seats, others might choose to make the aisles a bit wider. Doesn't change the fact that the 330/340 is, per seat, slightly wider (and we're talking fractions of inches here) than the 777 - what the airlines choose to do with that extra space is up to them.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:53 am

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 15):
You didn't watch all the ads, or read all of the Apple copy then. Because they did that sort of thing.

I did. And no they didn't.
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
hatbutton
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:39 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:55 am

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 36):
And some airlines (like SQ) are starting to replace their 777s so anyone can give examples which suit them.

I'm not just giving examples which suit me. Most of these airlines have indicated they are retiring them because the economics don't work out compared to twins. Yes SQ will replace their 777s like many premium airlines do with their aircraft at a young age, but there are clear examples of airlines who got rid of them for reasons other than that, such as AC.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 36):
And I don't consider the A340 a failure. It definately was not a runaway success, but a failure is something completely different. Don't forget times have changed: the 767 was a success and sold "only" over a 1000 units over almost 20 years while the 787 sold 800 even before the first one was in service.

What do you consider a failure then? An older model in the 767 sold almost 3 times as many aircraft as the A340. I wonder how much money the A340 made Airbus and what the breakeven number was.
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:56 am

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 38):
Why include the A330 and A340 together? Just because both aircraft have generally the same mission as the 777?

No, because they were designed together, and meant from the very beginning to be two members of the same family. You can't say the same about the 767, 777 and 747.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
hatbutton
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:39 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:04 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 42):
No, because they were designed together, and meant from the very beginning to be two members of the same family. You can't say the same about the 767, 777 and 747.

Yeah I understand, but I don't think that matters and I don't think you can claim that means Airbus "beat the pants" off of any product Boeing offered. Airbus designed 2 aircraft at the same time which gave customers an option between the two. Boeing had 3 different long haul aircraft to offer during the same time. The A330 and A340 are still separate airplanes.
 
neutronstar73
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:57 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:04 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 39):
Well, now you're getting into airline-specific seat layouts. Some might choose to give more room to the seats, others might choose to make the aisles a bit wider. Doesn't change the fact that the 330/340 is, per seat, slightly wider (and we're talking fractions of inches here) than the 777 - what the airlines choose to do with that extra space is up to them.

-Mir

I don't quite understand what your point is here. That statement is an exercise in contradictions. You can't say "airline specific seat layouts" that give the 777 a clear advantage, then say "per seat" the A330/340 seats are wider. Especially in your given parameters (8 abreast vs 9 abreast).

Unless you want to up the 777 seat count to 10 abreast in order to slice the 777 seat width down to below the a330/340, but that would be nonsense. At that point, we are just moving the goalposts and changing the rules on the fly to favor one side.

I gave you 4 different airline configurations and all had a 777 advantage. But if you want to compare same airline, different aircraft manufacturers:

Delta A333 Economy seat width: 17.5
Delta 772 economy seat width: 18.5

Lufthansa A320 NEK Economy seat width: 17.0-18.0
Lufthanse 737-530 NEK economy seat width: 18.0

It is all down to airline configurations. But so far, comparing the airlines here, the average is in Boeing's court. But I'm sure there are some airlines that like to cattle-car passengers.

Mir
No, because they were designed together, and meant from the very beginning to be two members of the same family. You can't say the same about the 767, 777 and 747.

Just asking? Wasn't the A340 supposed to be the focus of Airbus' main effort at the time that project started? I remember all my friends marvelling at the A340 and the A330 was sort of an afterthought due to the A340's range capability and fuel efficiency.

But the market didn't work out that way and the A330 became the main effort?

[Edited 2011-11-28 22:09:04]
 
Flighty
Posts: 7677
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:28 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 24):
The 747 has sold over 1500 and counting.

*facepalm*

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
Now if you want to artificially parse the reporting criteria to make some kind of point...

Was using a present tense, present-decade even, so yeah... sorry it was so "confusing." The A340 was a success. Not a smash, but it's a beauty, and 375 is a hell of a lot more than "failure" models in aviation, of which there have been many. I wish the 748 and A388 well, but yeah. 375 is so few. Cough cough cough cough. I'd love to see how such a person actually puts pants on -- just a diagram, cause it must be amazing.
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:35 am

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 43):
Yeah I understand, but I don't think that matters

It very much does. You can't compare one aircraft program to half of an aircraft program and call it a fair comparison.

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 43):
I don't think you can claim that means Airbus "beat the pants" off of any product Boeing offered.

The 330-200 very much outclassed the 767-300 (the 767-400 was never that competitive in the first place). The 330-300 very much outclassed the 777-200 (non-ER). The other 777 models have done very well against the Airbus competition, but there's no escaping the fact that for certain markets, Airbus was offering a better airplane than Boeing was.

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 43):
The A330 and A340 are still separate airplanes.

They're really not. Same pilot type rating, virtually identical systems except for the engine differences, same fuselage cross-section, same wing. They're as much the same family as all the 777 models are.

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 44):
That statement is an exercise in contradictions. You can't say "airline specific seat layouts" that give the 777 a clear advantage, then say "per seat" the A330/340 seats are wider. Especially in your given parameters (8 abreast vs 9 abreast).

Actually, you can. The A330/340 cabin is 17.3 feet wide. With 8 seats, that's 2.16 feet per seat. The 777 cabin is 19.25 feet wide. With 9 seats, that's 2.14 feet per seat. Obviously, that leaves no room for the aisles, so you're going to have to chip away at each seat somewhat to make room for them - how much you chip away is an airline-specific decision.

Like I said, we're not talking about a huge difference here, and I was only bringing it up as a point of interest, not because I think it makes one better than the other (since how wide the seats are is really something that the airlines themselves decide).

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 44):
Just asking? Wasn't the A340 supposed to be the focus of Airbus' main effort at the time that project started? I remember all my friends marvelling at the A340 and the A330 was sort of an afterthought due to the A340's range capability and fuel efficiency.

But the market didn't work out that way and the A330 became the main effort?

That is pretty much how it turned out, yes. The 340 ran into trouble from the start because they couldn't get the engines they wanted (from IAE) and were forced to use CFMs instead. Had things turned out differently, it might have sold better.

Boeing also got an advantage by being later to the party than Airbus, and was thus able to take advantage of advances in technology that allowed the 777 to be a twin (engines the size of the GE90 didn't exist when the 340 was in the works, thus it had to be a quad- or tri-jet).

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9848
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:48 am

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 37):

I think these facts will set the record straight.

Actually that just just muddies the water further.

There are three seat measurements used in industry, seat back, seat bottom, and the width between arm rests. There is only a handful of seat manufacturers out there, the number and type of products available is not that varied.

Seatguru interchanges the 3 measurements without people knowing any better. Seatguru is the wiki of aircraft configurations, using the data without checking it often ends in errors as you do not know who has added the data. I know personally from the data list for the airline that I work for, that the seatguru information is inaccurate.

If you were discerning enough you would be able to catch Seatguru out in a number of places, many airlines have the same seats installed from the same manufacturer, however Seatguru lists then as having different widths. They are the same seat, they are listing different measurements.

The standard 9 across configuration on the 777 has an 18.5" seat, 2" arm rests, and a 19.25" isle.

Using the same seat on the A330/A340 is possible, this is the math...
8 seat x 18.5"= 148"
11 arm rests x 2" = 22"
2 isle at 19" = 38"
Total = 208" which is the available width on the A330/A340 cabin.

Using a 17" seat
This is the math...
8 seat x 17"= 136"
11 arm rests x 2" = 22"
2 isle at 19" = 38"
Total = 196" which is 12" less than the available width on the A330/A340 cabin.

You can put the same seats inside an A330/A340 without an issue. If you use a 17" seat, you would have a spare 12" of cabin width.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
AngMoh
Posts: 739
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:03 am

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:55 am

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 41):
What do you consider a failure then?

IL-96
Dassault Mercure
and a long list of other planes.

On a side note, I have seen the Cubana IL-96 and it looks interesting, a bit like a pregnant guppy.

BTW, DC-10, MD-11, L-1011 and 717 do not belong on the failure lists either and they sold less than 400 each

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 41):
An older model in the 767 sold almost 3 times as many aircraft as the A340. I wonder how much money the A340 made Airbus and what the breakeven number was.

The 767 is in a higher volume segment so it should have sold at least double.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11099
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340

Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:58 am

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 48):
BTW, DC-10, MD-11, L-1011 and 717 do not belong on the failure lists either and they sold less than 400 each

The MD-11 most definitely does belong on a failures list. Talk about a day late and a dollar short.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], EZYAirbus, jrfspa320, KarelXWB, LAX772LR, LH452, Loew, paulsaz, sassiciai and 225 guests