na
Topic Author
Posts: 9720
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:53 pm

https://www.lh-taufnamen.de/lufthansa/

I wonder what is going on with LHs A340-600-subfleet. Over a short period of just 12 months most jets, even some less than 10 years old, have been parked or will be parked soon. I know that LH has announced to reduce the A346-fleet, but there has been no word that all will have to go asap.
 
glbltrvlr
Posts: 975
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:28 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Mon Aug 21, 2017 4:34 pm

Always thought LH's A346s with the downstairs lavatory were a nice option for coach travel. Certainly eliminated the noisy seat by the lav problem.
 
aviationaware
Posts: 2858
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Mon Aug 21, 2017 4:56 pm

They are being replaced by A350s. Once the A380s move to MUC, the remainder will move to FRA.
 
NichCage
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:34 pm

Lufthansa is replacing the A346 on the MUC-HKG route with the A359 later this year, for example. So the A346 is slowly being retired.

Also, there is something that kind of confused me. Lufthansa annouced that later on this year the MUC-HKG route will be replaced with the A359, when the A388 is supposed to fly the route like they annouced earlier? That kind of confused me, but here is a link to prove it.

https://www.businesstraveller.com/busin ... vice-a350/
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21606
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:41 pm

Recall that the A345/A346 family never sold that well, so that means that spare parts are going to run short earlier in the aircraft's life cycle than for an aircraft that sold a lot of copies like the 744.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12664
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:42 pm

DocLightning wrote:
Recall that the A345/A346 family never sold that well

Almost shockingly so.

It's easy to realize what a failure the A345 was, but I always sorta figured the A346 to be a not-good-as-its-competitor-but-still-decent-selling....

....until you realize that even the MD11, often also considered to be a total sales flop, still sold *TWICE* as many units as the A346 did. :eek:
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
IAHWorldflyer
Posts: 802
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:00 pm

Who still flies this variant? I can think of LH, IB, VA, SAA and maybe Etihad.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9733
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:03 pm

IAHWorldflyer wrote:
Who still flies this variant? I can think of LH, IB, VA, SAA and maybe Etihad.

Add QR and Mahan Air and I believe that is it in terms of commercial operators.
 
george77300
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 8:33 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:01 pm

Polot wrote:
IAHWorldflyer wrote:
Who still flies this variant? I can think of LH, IB, VA, SAA and maybe Etihad.

Add QR and Mahan Air and I believe that is it in terms of commercial operators.


Firstly VA doesn't fly them, its VS.

Yes I believe that is it although EY are retiring this year, QR's frames are going soon, VS is retiring currently and to be replaced by B789 and A35K with some frames going to W5. All the rest are also in process of retiring or soon to be retiring.

My bet is W5 will be the last operator.
 
george77300
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 8:33 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:05 pm

Polot wrote:
IAHWorldflyer wrote:
Who still flies this variant? I can think of LH, IB, VA, SAA and maybe Etihad.

Add QR and Mahan Air and I believe that is it in terms of commercial operators.


Also J2 still has 2 A345's left on limited service, e.g. GYD-DXB-GYD
 
Andy33
Posts: 2504
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:07 pm

Bear in mind that there is huge commonality between the A340s and A330s which were built side by side on the same production line. Since the A330 is very much still in production, spares for A340 versions aren't likely to be anywhere near as much of a problem as many think
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 678
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:08 pm

The 346 was the Airbus attempt to polish a turd (i.e. the 340 was not a good design...so you make a derivative that is even worse). For LH the decision makes perfect sense.

Why fly a 346 when you can fly a 359 with 30% or more lower operating costs?
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
bgm
Posts: 2235
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:37 am

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:17 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
The 346 was the Airbus attempt to polish a turd (i.e. the 340 was not a good design...so you make a derivative that is even worse). For LH the decision makes perfect sense.

Why fly a 346 when you can fly a 359 with 30% or more lower operating costs?


Why was the A340 not a good design?
OK boomer.
 
jetwet1
Posts: 2948
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:42 am

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:25 pm

bgm wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
The 346 was the Airbus attempt to polish a turd (i.e. the 340 was not a good design...so you make a derivative that is even worse). For LH the decision makes perfect sense.

Why fly a 346 when you can fly a 359 with 30% or more lower operating costs?


Why was the A340 not a good design?


The 346 was a good design, the problem is the 77W is a great design....

I am surprised though that with cheap fuel and the 346's ability to haul freight it hasn't found a niche somewhere.
 
69bug
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:28 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:45 pm

One issue with the LH 346 in particular is the rear cargo hold has been used for stuff like toilets, galley and crew rest. All very well but these are quite 'light' compared to the cargo which would otherwise occupy this space. Add to that a forward hold which can take 8 96x125 pallets (747 can carry 5, the smallest 777 carries 6) and you have an aircraft which is usually very nose heavy and you sometimes have to fly with empty positions up front just to keep the cg inside the envelope.

Anilv
 
User avatar
RL777
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 1:43 am

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:52 pm

jetwet1 wrote:
bgm wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
The 346 was the Airbus attempt to polish a turd (i.e. the 340 was not a good design...so you make a derivative that is even worse). For LH the decision makes perfect sense.

Why fly a 346 when you can fly a 359 with 30% or more lower operating costs?


Why was the A340 not a good design?


The 346 was a good design, the problem is the 77W is a great design....

I am surprised though that with cheap fuel and the 346's ability to haul freight it hasn't found a niche somewhere.


Because although fuel is cheap, a 77W, A359 etc...can all haul just as much freight more efficiently.
 
na
Topic Author
Posts: 9720
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Mon Aug 21, 2017 10:01 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
The 346 was the Airbus attempt to polish a turd (i.e. the 340 was not a good design...so you make a derivative that is even worse). For LH the decision makes perfect sense.

Why fly a 346 when you can fly a 359 with 30% or more lower operating costs?


Agreed with the latter, but to say that the A340 was not a good design in general is just false. It killed the MD11-market even before the 777 arrived. The A340 is a particularly quiet and smooth performer, better than the competitor 777 in that respect. For the passenger, the A340 is equal to even the latest 777. Far before everything else, its just the money, and the fuel burn that makes the difference.

The fate of the second A340 generation was that it came just two or so years before the 77W. On top, while the A340-600 underperformed, the 77W overperformed. Nobody could expect that during the time the launch customers ordered them, and Airbus apparently quickly found that to be uncurable and killed the program. The A350 shows they were right. The A350 overperforms again, has the ability to beat the 777, while its superb engines are from the same manufacturer as the lemons propelling the A346s.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 678
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Mon Aug 21, 2017 10:41 pm

bgm wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
The 346 was the Airbus attempt to polish a turd (i.e. the 340 was not a good design...so you make a derivative that is even worse). For LH the decision makes perfect sense.

Why fly a 346 when you can fly a 359 with 30% or more lower operating costs?


Why was the A340 not a good design?




It was compromised from the start because the superfan engine Airbus wanted for the A340 never materialized. Hence the A340 was outdated and inefficient almost from the date of its first flight. This is why the 777 outsold the A340 almost 5 to 1.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
fraspotter
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 8:12 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Mon Aug 21, 2017 11:19 pm

aviationaware wrote:
They are being replaced by A350s. Once the A380s move to MUC, the remainder will move to FRA.

From what I read they're only moving 5 A380s to MUC to take over flights to LAX, PEK and HKG and leaving the remainder at FRA. Is this still the case?
"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee."

— Gunter's Second Law of Air Travel
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1438
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 1:16 am

fraspotter wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
They are being replaced by A350s. Once the A380s move to MUC, the remainder will move to FRA.

From what I read they're only moving 5 A380s to MUC to take over flights to LAX, PEK and HKG and leaving the remainder at FRA. Is this still the case?

That's right. 5 to MUC, with (I assume) the same number of A346s shifting to FRA.

Michael
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18424
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 1:40 am

jetwet1 wrote:
bgm wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
The 346 was the Airbus attempt to polish a turd (i.e. the 340 was not a good design...so you make a derivative that is even worse). For LH the decision makes perfect sense.

Why fly a 346 when you can fly a 359 with 30% or more lower operating costs?


Why was the A340 not a good design?


The 346 was a good design, the problem is the 77W is a great design....

I am surprised though that with cheap fuel and the 346's ability to haul freight it hasn't found a niche somewhere.

Freight rates are lower. It still costs more to fly an A346 than a 77W. But the A350 has stopped selling as the economics aren't good enough. The 787 and A350 are now better. Soon, the 777-9 will fly the routes of the A346. How long could an A346 compete with a 777X? Not very long.


Once the 787-10, 777X, and A35K hit the fleet, cargo rates will drop a little. Supply vs. demand.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
fightforlove
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 4:03 am

na wrote:

Agreed with the latter, but to say that the A340 was not a good design in general is just false. It killed the MD11-market even before the 777 arrived. The A340 is a particularly quiet and smooth performer, better than the competitor 777 in that respect. For the passenger, the A340 is equal to even the latest 777. Far before everything else, its just the money, and the fuel burn that makes the difference.

The fate of the second A340 generation was that it came just two or so years before the 77W. On top, while the A340-600 underperformed, the 77W overperformed. Nobody could expect that during the time the launch customers ordered them, and Airbus apparently quickly found that to be uncurable and killed the program. The A350 shows they were right. The A350 overperforms again, has the ability to beat the 777, while its superb engines are from the same manufacturer as the lemons propelling the A346s.


I always wondered why Airbus didn't quickly make an A346neo in the mid-00s after it was quickly realized that the base version had missed it's target specs and was getting eaten alive in sales by the 77W. Airbus were (briefly) studying the idea, there was a thread on here all those years ago about it if you search archives. Upgrade the engines plus some incremental improvements to the fuselage and cabin from the technology they were learning from the A380/A350 development at that time, and they could have had a stop-gap A346neo to hold onto a few customers until the A350 arrived. Now the A350 was a good 3 years behind initial planned EIS and the -1000 series is in a hurry-up-and-wait situation what with all the major carriers flying around not-so-old-yet 77Ws.
 
User avatar
CarlosSi
Posts: 594
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:29 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 4:33 am

But not the a340-300s which are older in age and design? I would figure the much larger engines would be more efficient because of the higher bypass ratio, but I guess there's more to it than that, as well as the seat-capacity?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14154
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 4:41 am

LAX772LR wrote:
....until you realize that even the MD11, often also considered to be a total sales flop, still sold *TWICE* as many units as the A346 did. :eek:


Is that actually true ?

The MD-11 was more than one model like the A340, which MD-11 model, are you referring to the MD-11, MD-11ER, or the MD11F ?

If you are referring to all MD-11s then you should refer to all A340s, after all it was the A340-300 which killed the MD-11 pax sales.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12664
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 4:44 am

fightforlove wrote:
I always wondered why Airbus didn't quickly make an A346neo in the mid-00s after it was quickly realized that the base version had missed it's target specs and was getting eaten alive in sales by the 77W.

Because a new engine wouldn't have addressed the A346's primary "weakness"-- which is that the reinforcement required to support the long+narrow fuselage stretch, gave it a heap of deadweight that couldn't be taken out.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8948
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 5:04 am

The A343 was decent, although hampered by the engine they had to use. A345/A346 are bad designs overall. The fuselage is over stretched, then Trent 500 are costly to maintain and fuel burn never was as good as hoped.
 
aviationaware
Posts: 2858
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 5:43 am

fraspotter wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
They are being replaced by A350s. Once the A380s move to MUC, the remainder will move to FRA.

From what I read they're only moving 5 A380s to MUC to take over flights to LAX, PEK and HKG and leaving the remainder at FRA. Is this still the case?


Yes, that's right. They will switch one for one. What A346s will be left after that (if any) will be replaced by A350s. So MUC will move from A333, A346 and A359 today to A333, A388 and A359 over the coming year.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2551
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 6:07 am

The A346 was never meant to go up against the 77W. It was meant as a B747-200/-300 replacement, and based on that brief it was an excellent design delivering great numbers. Trouble was, if that's what you'd call it, that Boeing over-delivered beyond it's wildest dreams with the 77W. But, just to be clear, the A346 fully lived up to it's brief: Be a better 747-200.
Signature. You just read one.
 
User avatar
conaly
Posts: 345
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 10:50 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 6:11 am

What I wonder: how competitive is the standard 2-4-2-seating A340 compared to a standard 3-3-3-seating 777? The A340 was designed for and mostly used with 2-4-2 seating, only very few A340s have been used as tourist bombers with 3-3-3 seating (i.e. Air Caraibes, AirAsia X), whereas even many full service carriers went to 3-4-3 instead of the standard 3-3-3 on the T7. So of course I see a big advantage on the T7 in that matter. Not that I want to badmouth the T7, the 77W is an excellent aircraft, I'm just curious how the T7 would have worked, if no full service airline would have ever went with 3-4-3-seating.
Airports 2019: ADB, ALG, AMD, ATL, BOS, CTS, DEL, DTW, DUS, EWR, FRA, FUK, HAM, HIJ, HND, IST, JFK, MUC, NGO, NUE, OKA, PHL, SIN, STN, YYZ
Planned 2019: BOG, CDG, FRA, HFT, HVG, MUC, NUE, TOS, ZRH
 
Blotto
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:00 am

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:52 am

eamondzhang wrote:
That's right. 5 to MUC, with (I assume) the same number of A346s shifting to FRA.

Michael


They will switch 380s for 346s. Those 346s will take over the routes that were flown by the 380s ex FRA. On top other 346s will move to FRA for routes like BOG as they are replaced in MUC by 350s. No plans for retirement of the 346 fleet as of now.
 
godsbeloved
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:32 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:05 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
bgm wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
The 346 was the Airbus attempt to polish a turd (i.e. the 340 was not a good design...so you make a derivative that is even worse). For LH the decision makes perfect sense.

Why fly a 346 when you can fly a 359 with 30% or more lower operating costs?


Why was the A340 not a good design?




It was compromised from the start because the superfan engine Airbus wanted for the A340 never materialized. Hence the A340 was outdated and inefficient almost from the date of its first flight. This is why the 777 outsold the A340 almost 5 to 1.


Fuel burn on the A340 is not as bad as some people here pretend. There are other costs associated though with operating 4 engines instead of 2. Still many airlines make quite some money with these planes though and as a passengerI prefer the quietness and 2-4-2 over other airliners...
 
skipness1E
Posts: 4584
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 9:57 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
The 346 was the Airbus attempt to polish a turd (i.e. the 340 was not a good design...so you make a derivative that is even worse). For LH the decision makes perfect sense.

Why fly a 346 when you can fly a 359 with 30% or more lower operating costs?


It did very well against the MD11 and sold well to major airlines like Air France, Lufthansa, Iberia et al.
Your last point is "Why fly an aircraft from a different generation when a more modern one is more fuel efficient." No, really?
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1421
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 9:59 am

B777LRF wrote:
The A346 was never meant to go up against the 77W. It was meant as a B747-200/-300 replacement, and based on that brief it was an excellent design delivering great numbers. Trouble was, if that's what you'd call it, that Boeing over-delivered beyond it's wildest dreams with the 77W. But, just to be clear, the A346 fully lived up to it's brief: Be a better 747-200.


That's correct. But the A345/6 took far too long to reach the market (IIRC 1996 design, 2002 or 2003 EIS), and the subsequent imposition of the heavier HGW as standard which many customers did not need harmed prospects further.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10575
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:33 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
bgm wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
The 346 was the Airbus attempt to polish a turd (i.e. the 340 was not a good design...so you make a derivative that is even worse). For LH the decision makes perfect sense.

Why fly a 346 when you can fly a 359 with 30% or more lower operating costs?


Why was the A340 not a good design?




It was compromised from the start because the superfan engine Airbus wanted for the A340 never materialized. Hence the A340 was outdated and inefficient almost from the date of its first flight. This is why the 777 outsold the A340 almost 5 to 1.


A relevant comparison then would be all 777 family types against all 330/340 types - remember they were developed in tandem so looking at figures in isolation applies an unfounded bias.

As others have rightly stated, there is a pretence here that the original 340 (and by that I mean the 343) is massively inefficient when compared to the 777. Simply put, it isn't - the two are actually very closely matched when it comes to costs, with Airbus claiming to beat the 777-200ER's fuel burn by a significant 5%. It is also worth highlighting that the 343 entered the market 3-4 years before Boeing did with the ER - so it's frankly daft to suggest that it was inefficient from first flight.


Dan
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9733
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:43 am

B777LRF wrote:
The A346 was never meant to go up against the 77W. It was meant as a B747-200/-300 replacement, and based on that brief it was an excellent design delivering great numbers. Trouble was, if that's what you'd call it, that Boeing over-delivered beyond it's wildest dreams with the 77W. But, just to be clear, the A346 fully lived up to it's brief: Be a better 747-200.

A bit of a ridiculous statement. That is like saying the A320 isn't meant to go against the 737 because it was designed as a 727 replacement. It's target market was 742 replacement, but it was still going up against the 77W for that market and Airbus knew it (even if the A346 came first).

godsbeloved wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
bgm wrote:

Why was the A340 not a good design?




It was compromised from the start because the superfan engine Airbus wanted for the A340 never materialized. Hence the A340 was outdated and inefficient almost from the date of its first flight. This is why the 777 outsold the A340 almost 5 to 1.


Fuel burn on the A340 is not as bad as some people here pretend. There are other costs associated though with operating 4 engines instead of 2. Still many airlines make quite some money with these planes though and as a passengerI prefer the quietness and 2-4-2 over other airliners...


Fuel burn on the A343 wasn't that bad. The A346 on the other hand...no. The A345/A346 are just absolute dogs compared to the 77L/77W.

skipness1E wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
The 346 was the Airbus attempt to polish a turd (i.e. the 340 was not a good design...so you make a derivative that is even worse). For LH the decision makes perfect sense.

Why fly a 346 when you can fly a 359 with 30% or more lower operating costs?


It did very well against the MD11 and sold well to major airlines like Air France, Lufthansa, Iberia et al.
Your last point is "Why fly an aircraft from a different generation when a more modern one is more fuel efficient." No, really?


The A346 came to the scene long after the MD-11 was dead, and did not sell well at all.

zeke wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
....until you realize that even the MD11, often also considered to be a total sales flop, still sold *TWICE* as many units as the A346 did. :eek:


Is that actually true ?

The MD-11 was more than one model like the A340, which MD-11 model, are you referring to the MD-11, MD-11ER, or the MD11F ?

If you are referring to all MD-11s then you should refer to all A340s, after all it was the A340-300 which killed the MD-11 pax sales.


131 pax MD-11 were built + 5 factory MD-11ER. That is still more than the 97 A346s built (unsure of split between normal and HGW).
 
User avatar
novarupta
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:32 am

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 12:27 pm

Polot wrote:

131 pax MD-11 were built + 5 factory MD-11ER. That is still more than the 97 A346s built (unsure of split between normal and HGW).


Approximately 370 A340s were built in total. Using one variant of the A340 against multiple variants of the MD-11 (Approx 200 total) isn't a fair comparison.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9733
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 12:33 pm

novarupta wrote:
Polot wrote:

131 pax MD-11 were built + 5 factory MD-11ER. That is still more than the 97 A346s built (unsure of split between normal and HGW).


Approximately 370 A340s were built in total. Using one variant of the A340 against multiple variants of the MD-11 (Approx 200 total) isn't a fair comparison.

Which is exactly why I compared one variant of the A340, the A346, to one variant of the MD-11 (the passenger version). The MD-11 only came in one size, it wasn't a family of passenger aircraft. I excluded the 64 MD-11Fs/MD-11CFs/MD-11Cs built.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21937
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 12:37 pm

novarupta wrote:
Polot wrote:

131 pax MD-11 were built + 5 factory MD-11ER. That is still more than the 97 A346s built (unsure of split between normal and HGW).


Approximately 370 A340s were built in total. Using one variant of the A340 against multiple variants of the MD-11 (Approx 200 total) isn't a fair comparison.


If you want to go in that direction, then the MD-11 is just a variant of the DC-10 so it should be included in the "MD-11 family", since the differences of A340-300 -> -600 are of the same order of magnitude of DC-10 -> MD-11.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
PhoenixVIP
Posts: 374
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:41 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 1:09 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
bgm wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
The 346 was the Airbus attempt to polish a turd (i.e. the 340 was not a good design...so you make a derivative that is even worse). For LH the decision makes perfect sense.

Why fly a 346 when you can fly a 359 with 30% or more lower operating costs?


Why was the A340 not a good design?




It was compromised from the start because the superfan engine Airbus wanted for the A340 never materialized. Hence the A340 was outdated and inefficient almost from the date of its first flight. This is why the 777 outsold the A340 almost 5 to 1.


Wow our newbie hijaked this thread as well with fake news! :roll:

The A340 was a design from the 80s conceived by a short - medium range A330 and longer range A340. That was the best technology at the time with ETOPS restrictions and no superfan engine. The 777 is newer than the A340 and note the first 777 variant, being the 777-200 was no better that the A330 or A340 until the 777-200ER came in 1997, which is 4 years after the A342/3 first deliver date. The performance of the A343 exceeded that of the MD-11 who was the primary competition at the time, and both the A342 and A343 outsold the MD-11 which was the direct competitor.
The 77W was the best aircraft that exceeded all expectations and created what we know is the gap between the 77W and A340NG that happened from 2004 onwards. The A340NG was good however had very high maintenance costs, legacy of ETOPS restriction designs which were being eliminated in the industry at that time, and also not even Boeing knew the 77W would perform beyond what was on paper.

Even your best friend Wikipedia gave this information!! Woahhh!!!!

Then the absurdity to state the A350 is better than the A340. Stating the obvious, if you can't do something better 25 years later then you may as well leave the industry.

:white:

In fact funnily the retirement of the A340-600 yet continual use of the older A340-300 with LH is a testament to the A340-300's design and performance (Zeke - I believe you have some stats from before showing how comparable the A343 was to the 772 with CX? There were similar fuel burn figures depending on range and payloads from memory; cheers).
Inspire the truth.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18424
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 1:29 pm

The A340 fleet operating is at a mere 200. This means any parts not related to the A330 or A320 are getting tougher to find new.

http://www.airfleets.net/exploit/production-a340.htm


Unfortunately, the lack of economy of scale is going to accelerate retirements. With all major operators of the A346 retiring the type, Airbus will have difficulty making a profit supporting the plane.

380 total vs. over 700 DC-10/MD-11 and the huge number of 777s...

The reality is once the A333 had 5,700nm of range and the A332 over 7,200nm, there wasn't a need. The 787 and A350 have killed the type too.

The T500 powered A340s are basically done. SQ and EK have retired the type. Soon EY will retire the type. VS is down to 8 A343 and 7 A346. Both will fade out soon. LH will slowly retire the type and then IB.

As sad as 747 passenger retirements? No. But quads have a tough time paying for fuel and maintenance...

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9733
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 1:54 pm

lightsaber wrote:
The T500 powered A340s are basically done. SQ and EK have retired the type. Soon EY will retire the type. VS is down to 8 A343 and 7 A346. Both will fade out soon. LH will slowly retire the type and then IB.

VS retired their A343 fleet several years ago. They only have the 7 A346s.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8953
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 1:55 pm

I think the thread starts with a misconception. Yes LH has 3 A340-600 stored, but has 21 frames still active. That is far from retiring most or all. The question is are those 3 retired or only temporarily stored and when will LH retire more. The 3 frames stored are not the oldest A340-600 at LH.

Of 30 A340-300 12 are retired, scrapped or sold and all A340-200 were sold. So there are still 18 A340-300 active.

It is possible that each new A350-900 will retire a A340-600.

But LH is also retiring 747-400. 18 off 31 are gone, stored 5, sold 4, or scrapped 9. IMO we will see all 747-400 being gone before the last A340-600 will be retired at LH.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9733
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 2:12 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
I think the thread starts with a misconception. Yes LH has 3 A340-600 stored, but has 21 frames still active. That is far from retiring most or all. The question is are those 3 retired or only temporarily stored and when will LH retire more. The 3 frames stored are not the oldest A340-600 at LH.

LH has 17 active A346s, with 7 stored (D-AIHD/M/N/O/Q/R/S...I confirmed that none of those have flown recently), and according to the link in the OP has several more (6 to be exact) scheduled to withdrawn from use later this year or early next. I wouldn't hold my breath on these being temporary reductions.
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1675
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 2:17 pm

jetwet1 wrote:
The 346 was a good design, the problem is the 77W is a great design...


The 346 was a good design, the problem is the 330 and 777 were great designs... and improved as time went by.

(fixed it for you)
 
juliuswong
Moderator
Posts: 1871
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:22 am

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 2:56 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
bgm wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
The 346 was the Airbus attempt to polish a turd (i.e. the 340 was not a good design...so you make a derivative that is even worse). For LH the decision makes perfect sense.

Why fly a 346 when you can fly a 359 with 30% or more lower operating costs?


Why was the A340 not a good design?

It was compromised from the start because the superfan engine Airbus wanted for the A340 never materialized. Hence the A340 was outdated and inefficient almost from the date of its first flight. This is why the 777 outsold the A340 almost 5 to 1.

To say that A340 was not a good design and outdated from the date of its first flight are a bit far fetched and does not justice to Airbus. Airbus saw an opportunity in the market when a lot of airlines at that point of time, early 90s to mid 90s, were dropping the massive 747 as they did not need the additional capacity that 747 possess. Airbus capitalised on this and came up with A330/A340 combination family to replace the B747 Classics at the same time as replacement for A300/A310 (for A330 case). Both entered service in 1993 and 1994 respectively, four years before B777 arrived on the scene. It is also worth noting Boeing saw the same opportunity albeit later than Airbus therefore B777-200/200ER came to fruition. The B777 was a good design, over time performed much better than expected thus started cannibalising A340. However, back then when 777 first entered the scene it came with host of issues, especially with the engines. No ETOPS certification initially was a bane as well, hence why many airlines have four holers in their fleet especially A340 for long and thin route. Boeing got this rectified with B777-200ER and 777 family was on its way to the top with later 777-300, 777-300ER, B777-200LR and lastly B777-200F.

Also during when A330/A340 was conceived, there was no true competitor in same class except for MD-11. Have MD not blew its MD-11 performance apart, A340 might not have a good chance in denting its sales. Singapore Airlines placed an order for 5 firm + 15 options for MD-11 on January 16, 1990 but later cancelled the order when fuel burn and range issue came to light. Of course, Singapore Airlines later went on to trade its 17 A340-300s with 77 B777 order on November 15, 1995. It was the single largest 777 order during that time. Boeing has simply improved the B777-200 shortcomings so much that the B777-200ER took away many A340 potential order.

Worth noting, the actual competitor to B777-200 is actually A330-300. B777-200ER competes with A340-300, B777-200LR competes with A340-500 and B777-300/300ER competes with A340-600, again this depends on the airlines' needs and requirement to which aircraft to purchase.

Summary, A340-300 was good, B777 was better and got even better with later generation hence killed off any future A340 sales just like how A330 new generation killed of B777-200/200ER. However A340 is a very capable aircraft on its own and deserved her place in aviation world.

I still have some old aviation magazines dating back to these dates, need to dig them out if I have some free time. Interesting to see how aviation world has evolved over the past 20 years.
- Life is a journey, travel it well -
 
fightforlove
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 3:02 pm

Polot wrote:
novarupta wrote:
Polot wrote:

131 pax MD-11 were built + 5 factory MD-11ER. That is still more than the 97 A346s built (unsure of split between normal and HGW).


Approximately 370 A340s were built in total. Using one variant of the A340 against multiple variants of the MD-11 (Approx 200 total) isn't a fair comparison.

Which is exactly why I compared one variant of the A340, the A346, to one variant of the MD-11 (the passenger version). The MD-11 only came in one size, it wasn't a family of passenger aircraft. I excluded the 64 MD-11Fs/MD-11CFs/MD-11Cs built.


A342/A343 is the more appropriate comparable to the MD-11/MD-11ER, and Airbus sold 246 A342/A343s.
 
fightforlove
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 3:10 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
fightforlove wrote:
I always wondered why Airbus didn't quickly make an A346neo in the mid-00s after it was quickly realized that the base version had missed it's target specs and was getting eaten alive in sales by the 77W.

Because a new engine wouldn't have addressed the A346's primary "weakness"-- which is that the reinforcement required to support the long+narrow fuselage stretch, gave it a heap of deadweight that couldn't be taken out.


Yeah no doubt the wider fuselage of the 777 made it more suited to a stretch than the A340, I think Airbus were also looking at composite materials to an A346"E"/"neo" at the time, but maybe that would have driven R&D costs beyond the scope of what they were trying to accomplish. Still looks bad in retrospect though with all the A350 delays to concede that corner of the market for years.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18424
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 3:23 pm

Polot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
I think the thread starts with a misconception. Yes LH has 3 A340-600 stored, but has 21 frames still active. That is far from retiring most or all. The question is are those 3 retired or only temporarily stored and when will LH retire more. The 3 frames stored are not the oldest A340-600 at LH.

LH has 17 active A346s, with 7 stored (D-AIHD/M/N/O/Q/R/S...I confirmed that none of those have flown recently), and according to the link in the OP has several more (6 to be exact) scheduled to withdrawn from use later this year or early next. I wouldn't hold my breath on these being temporary reductions.

So plan is enter 2018 with 11 A346 flying for LH. After I was corrected... The A346
A few for VS 7 in 2018?
11 for LH
IB, most of the 17
QR's 4
Mehan's...

Yea, it will be pricey to service the type in 2018.

With the number of A330s, A350s, 787s, and 777s to be delivered this and next year, the relative efficiency will be a tough comparison.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9733
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 3:39 pm

fightforlove wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
fightforlove wrote:
I always wondered why Airbus didn't quickly make an A346neo in the mid-00s after it was quickly realized that the base version had missed it's target specs and was getting eaten alive in sales by the 77W.

Because a new engine wouldn't have addressed the A346's primary "weakness"-- which is that the reinforcement required to support the long+narrow fuselage stretch, gave it a heap of deadweight that couldn't be taken out.


Yeah no doubt the wider fuselage of the 777 made it more suited to a stretch than the A340, I think Airbus were also looking at composite materials to an A346"E"/"neo" at the time, but maybe that would have driven R&D costs beyond the scope of what they were trying to accomplish. Still looks bad in retrospect though with all the A350 delays to concede that corner of the market for years.


Airbus floated a A340-600 Enchanced around the time of the A350 Mk1 incorporating many of the A350's improvements to the A340 plus I think a reengine. The problem wasn't R&D costs (because they would have been shared with the A350), the reason Airbus didn't go through with it is because the airlines were not interested in the proposal and told Airbus to come up with something better (eventually the A350XWB that also replaced the A350 mkwhatever and its criticism that it wasn't enough vs the 787).
 
PennPal
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 12:35 pm

Re: LH retiring most (or all?) A340-600?

Tue Aug 22, 2017 4:17 pm

"380 total vs. over 700 DC-10/MD-11 and the huge number of 777s..."

No disrespect intended, but there were a total of 446 DC10s built and 200 MD11s built. My favorite airliners.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos