D-AIHT hasn't moved since October 29th, 2017. I assumed its WFU. Also Lufthansa just received their 7th A359 (D-AIXG) 4 days ago, so I'm pretty sure that there should be another quad pulled from the fleet.

ElroyJetson wrote:

The 346 was the Airbus attempt to polish a turd (i.e. the 340 was not a good design...

Not exactly...For those of us flying more than 8 hours in Y-class...don't celebrate the A340 passing!

I will take 2-4-2 in a A330/340, or better yet, 2-3-2 in a 767 over the 9-across 787 or 10-across 777 any time. And yes, the A350 should be 8-across Y-class too !! Bean counting is understandable, but both A and B are marketing twin-aisle's that get some of their per-seat efficiency gain by cramming another seat in each row.

...So keep those A340's and 767's in the sky as long as possible. Twenty years from now I will be saying the same thing about the A380. But sadly, passenger comfort is being demeaned as a priority...it should be a higher one

Can they not stall them at BRU? SN Brussels Airlines should start to expand again imho. I know their newish 330’s are coming to replace the current fleet but nothing so far on African/American/Indian expansion out of BRU

The A343 are better for that. They are cheaper to operate and the capacity matches the needs of SN/EW better.

QuarkFly wrote:

I will take 2-4-2 in a A330/340, or better yet, 2-3-2 in a 767 over the 9-across 787 or 10-across 777 any time. And yes, the A350 should be 8-across Y-class too !!

I agree, that A330/A340 with 2-4-2 in economy is much better, than 3-3-3 on the Dreamliner or 3-4-3 on the T7. Boeing intended the 787 with a 2-4-2-layout and the T7 with 3-3-3, but unfortunately airlines started to squeeze another seat in each row.

But you're wrong on the A350: the first design of the A350 was meant to heave the same cabin width as the A330/A340 (actually the A330neo is that, what the first A350 should have been) with a 2-4-2-layout. The airlines wanted a wider cabin for more seats, so Airbus made the A350XWB (eXtra Wide Body), which was designed for 3-3-3 from the start. But even here some low cost carriers (Air Caraibs, in future probably AirAsia X) started to add another seat into the A350 and using it with a 3-4-3-layout.

seahawk wrote:

The A343 are better for that. They are cheaper to operate and the capacity matches the needs of SN/EW better.

Aren’t all the remaining 343’s going to DUS? SN has a far more superior long haul product offering then EW, so they’d be more then welcome for BRU.

So I guess the A346 being on its way out will not be painted in the new colors anymore.

There’s hope...Spohr just announced that Africa will see a big growth and expansion within the LHG. Who’s the Africa specialist? Who’s in need of long haul aircraft? Right...

The downsides of operating the A346 are all well known, but with these aircraft being relatively young (specially having been maintained by LH), fully paid for, and fuel being cheap, you would have thought they'd operate them until a) the end of their lives or b)fuel rises again, whatever comes first. Give them to EW or SN as they are seeking long-haul capacity.

The 8th A350-900XWB (D-AIXH) has been delivered one week ago. With that I have been doing a little bit of research online to see how many current A346s are still flying (Mostly on FlightAware to see movements and their last flights performed, but I do know they tend to glitch out sometimes, especially if you just search for their registration number). D-AIHT has moved once again 2 weeks ago MUC-MLA. D-AIHK seems like it hasn't moved in over a week from MUC as it's last light was CPT-MUC. However I do not think this frame will be retired since it seems like its listed as flight LH575 to depart. Is there any insight on when the next A346 frame leaves the fleet?

Narfish641 wrote:

The 8th A350-900XWB (D-AIXH) has been delivered one week ago. With that I have been doing a little bit of research online to see how many current A346s are still flying (Mostly on FlightAware to see movements and their last flights performed, but I do know they tend to glitch out sometimes, especially if you just search for their registration number). D-AIHT has moved once again 2 weeks ago MUC-MLA. D-AIHK seems like it hasn't moved in over a week from MUC as it's last light was CPT-MUC. However I do not think this frame will be retired since it seems like its listed as flight LH575 to depart. Is there any insight on when the next A346 frame leaves the fleet?

well, not an insight (probably), but very very accurate overview of current LHG can be retrieved here: https://sites.google.com/site/lhgroupfleet/lufthansa

stylo777 wrote:

Narfish641 wrote:

The 8th A350-900XWB (D-AIXH) has been delivered one week ago. With that I have been doing a little bit of research online to see how many current A346s are still flying (Mostly on FlightAware to see movements and their last flights performed, but I do know they tend to glitch out sometimes, especially if you just search for their registration number). D-AIHT has moved once again 2 weeks ago MUC-MLA. D-AIHK seems like it hasn't moved in over a week from MUC as it's last light was CPT-MUC. However I do not think this frame will be retired since it seems like its listed as flight LH575 to depart. Is there any insight on when the next A346 frame leaves the fleet?

well, not an insight (probably), but very very accurate overview of current LHG can be retrieved here: https://sites.google.com/site/lhgroupfleet/lufthansa

Thanks for the link! This really helps out a lot! So I guess it seems like they will be keeping the 13 frames for a bit, with 3 more retirements coming in June and July of this year. I guess to get their money worth of them before heading to the scrapper.

D-AHID flew from storing at TEV to HAM today and rumours says she will get a new landing gear and will resume then flying from MUC

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/airc ... d#10c59afd

trijetsonly wrote:

r2rho wrote:

The downsides of operating the A346 are all well known, but with these aircraft being relatively young (specially having been maintained by LH), fully paid for, and fuel being cheap, you would have thought they'd operate them until a) the end of their lives or b)fuel rises again, whatever comes first. Give them to EW or SN as they are seeking long-haul capacity.

In my understanding; with Rolls Royce engines you never reach the state "fully paid for" as they are leased and an airline can't just build up a pool of cheap spare engines, as it is done with 747 and A340-300.

Only if you finance them that way. There seems to be a mix-up with the concept of Power by the Hour deals, TotalCare and ownership overall.

TotalCare is the RR deal which takes away a lot of the uncertainty for the airlines. Rolls Royce handles all the maintenance and breakdowns. A bit like a fixed monthly payment service plan on your new car. RR gets the engine telemetry in real time and can plan repairs or servicing from it.

Power by the Hour is a deal where the airline pays for hours used on the engine. It can be a deal with a lessor (many of the big lessors do engines too) and suits airlines with lower usage. Not necessarily just RR engines either.

All these deals can be plugged into each other depending on what the customer wants. Or even none at all. Air France will be handling all their own maintenance on the Trent XWB, for instance.

Planesmart wrote:

T1a wrote:

Something is up with the A346 is LH is retiring them early.

My guess is, it's a special contract with RR.


Initially the engine mx costs on the A346 were horrible. So much that in the slow-down after the 2008 stock market crash LH was about to park less then 5 year old birds. Everbody always goes on about the A346's wheight and fuel consumption, but that really wasn't the deal breaker. Because RR and Airbus didn't want to lose one of their high-scale customers, RR gave LH a mx deal about 5-6 years ago, that cut the engine mx costs on the A346 for LH in half. That deal is of course rouinous for RR because they lose tons of money on LH's A346 engine mx.

So I think since LH management is usually pretty smart about cutting deals on aircraft purchases, they also got a special deal worked out with RR here. They probably got the engines for the A350 really cheap from RR if in return they park the A346s and thus release RR from that rouinous mx deal.


The first part is definitly fact and was also posted in the LH employee magazine a couple years back; the second part is my own theory, just so that nobody accuses me of not providing sources

Greets,
T1a

PBTH pricing consists of two components - fixed and variable. The variable component includes excess hours, cycles and a 'use' category. Also PiP's which are mostly mandatory. The variable component can include a discount for low use/cycles.

PBTH customers can 'fix' costs for periods of up to 15 years, but three or five years revolving is common.

Engine manufacturers reward customers that join PBTH on day one (penalise those that don't).

LH are a customer that used to opt out of engine maintenance contracts, pretty much mandatory for WB aircraft engines.

Later, LH decided to opt in, but wanted Day One pricing.

Many A346 customers enjoyed a buyback deal, guaranteeing pre-determined trade-in prices based on age, hours and cycles. Likely LH indicated it's intention to invoke this, as a bargaining ploy to extract better terms from RR, with pressure from Airbus.

For PBTH customers, fixed and variable charges, plus performance erosion guarantees, are on a par with similar sized engines from other OEM's of the same design and delivery era. It's a pricey engine for those who opt out of PBTH, or took PBTH for a short, finite period, and then want to opt back in again.

That doesn't explain why the A346 failed to sell one example after Airbus lowered engine maintenance costs.

I posted before anecdotal evidence the A343s cost more to maintain.

Weight costs. Every extra kilogram costs $50 per year to fly around in added fuel, maintenance, and other variable costs.

To others:
The A343 is a neat plane. But as much as people here wanted it to have sold better, it didn't. The 77E sold on economics.

Eh... We'll probably have 777-300ER threads in 5 years moaning about how it should be more economical to fly paid off 77W than the A350-1000. We'll still see the less economical plane replaced by the more economical plane.

There just aren't many A340 flying (I posted a comparison to the 744 up thread). Economy of scale is important with aircraft. Pratt recently noted how the economics shift. Every time you double production of Aerospace parts, the cost per part drops 13%. Or 4x=.87x.87=76% of the cost of 1x.

The A330 has great economy of scale. The A340 doesn't, in particular the T500 powered.

Lightsaber

PS, I find it facinating that the A330+A340+A330NEO is so close in total sales to the 777 family. Which will finally end with the higher delivered quantity?

AirbusOnly wrote:

D-AHID flew from storing at TEV to HAM today and rumours says she will get a new landing gear and will resume then flying from MUC

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/airc ... d#10c59afd

I guess that explains why the fleet jumped from 12 to 15 today. Because D-AIHK and a couple of other frames were was moved from storage. I also noticed quite a few frames are heading to FRA. Any reason why?

(https://sites.google.com/site/lhgroupfleet/lufthansa)

Here's a link for anyone that wants to check it out.

QuarkFly wrote:

But sadly, passenger comfort is being demeaned as a priority...it should be a higher one

It is... for those willing to PAY for it.

Just looked through the A346 fleet table a few moments and geez there seems like there are going to be a lot of things happening as the year progresses. Here are a few updates from the table:

*First and foremost, there are currently 15 frames that are active. 2 frames which are D-AIHD (Was mentioned yesterday. Currently it is at HAM and will return next week on Monday) and D-AIHT (Which was stored for a couple of months and will return next month) will rejoin the fleet and return the number back to 17 for a couple of months until the first retirement (D-AIHB) that will happen in June, and two more (D-AIHF and D-AIHA) in June. This will drop the number down to 14.

*Next, D-AIHH and D-AIHI are going to be painted in August of this year, most likely to receive the new livery. It also seems like two fames (D-AIHO stored in TEV and D-AIHS stored in MJZ) are going to be sold off. Can anyone explain what's going on with the 2 frames being sold off?

*Finally, and I mentioned this yesterday, there are quite a few frames that are heading towards FRA with D-AIHC and D-AIHK on Saturday, D-AIHV, D-AIHX, and D-AIHY on Sunday, and D-AIHL on Monday.

For anyone who wants to check out the fleet table, stylo777 provided the link in post #162 (Credit really goes to him since I'm doing the fleet analysis and sharing the info from the page lol) and on post #167.

lightsaber wrote:

I posted before anecdotal evidence the A343s cost more to maintain.

Cost more to maintain...than what? Than people thought, than the A346, than the 777? One of the 77E vs 343 threads on here said that the 343 does well, because the engine parts are dirt cheap.

Narfish641 wrote:

Just looked through the A346 fleet table a few moments and geez there seems like there are going to be a lot of things happening as the year progresses. Here are a few updates from the table:

*First and foremost, there are currently 15 frames that are active. 2 frames which are D-AIHD (Was mentioned yesterday. Currently it is at HAM and will return next week on Monday) and D-AIHT (Which was stored for a couple of months and will return next month) will rejoin the fleet and return the number back to 17 for a couple of months until the first retirement (D-AIHB) that will happen in June, and two more (D-AIHF and D-AIHA) in June. This will drop the number down to 14.

*Next, D-AIHH and D-AIHI are going to be painted in August of this year, most likely to receive the new livery. It also seems like two fames (D-AIHO stored in TEV and D-AIHS stored in MJZ) are going to be sold off. Can anyone explain what's going on with the 2 frames being sold off?

*Finally, and I mentioned this yesterday, there are quite a few frames that are heading towards FRA with D-AIHC and D-AIHK on Saturday, D-AIHV, D-AIHX, and D-AIHY on Sunday, and D-AIHL on Monday.

For anyone who wants to check out the fleet table, stylo777 provided the link in post #162 (Credit really goes to him since I'm doing the fleet analysis and sharing the info from the page lol) and on post #167.

Sight mistake in the first list, D-AIHF and D-AIHA will retire in July.

FSDan wrote:

GG22 wrote:

Anyone know which LH A346 routes still exist in Summer 2018?

Looking at the current schedules for the last week of June, I see the following:

FRA-LAX
FRA-RUH-DMM
FRA-ICN
FRA-PEK
FRA-HKG
MUC-SFO
MUC-DEN (1x weekly)
MUC-JFK (6x weekly)
MUC-MEX (5x weekly)
MUC-HND
MUC-PVG

I believe 13 frames are required to operate that schedule.

I understand the questions had to do with Summer 18, but just for information FRA-BOG will get an upgrade on its daily flight to a A346 as of October 28/18. This together with AV new flight BOG-MUC 5 x week as of November will be a large boost in capacity for Star Alliance between Colombia and Germany.

https://twitter.com/Airlineroute/status ... 3615006720

I'm pretty sure they replaced the A340 on MUC-ORD with an A359. I might be wrong, could be seasonal.

Hello. Here is a quick update for the A340-600 fleet as of 5/31/18:

*D-AIHB is currently parked at MUC, this could be the first true frame this year to actually be WFU since it was originally gonna be retired in June (It's almost June now obviously). So that's one down, with 2 more to go in July.

*Two frames (D-AIHE and D-AIHU), are currently in maintenance at MIA.

So that's (14/16) active frames, with two more to retire, two in maintenance, and two to go to paint in August.

According to this site: https://sites.google.com/site/lhgroupfleet/lufthansa
D-AIHA has now been taken out of service, and will be heading to Teruel. Sad to see her go, as she is the only Lufthansa A340-600 I've ever flown on so far (and that was just two weeks ago!)

Really need to retire all their A340 across the fleet and replaced it with 251t A330-900neo or A350-900/-1000 already.

ewt340 wrote:

Really need to retire all their A340 across the fleet and replaced it with 251t A330-900neo or A350-900/-1000 already.

You mean retire with 779s.


Lightsaber

LAX772LR wrote:

QuarkFly wrote:

But sadly, passenger comfort is being demeaned as a priority...it should be a higher one

It is... for those willing to PAY for it.

Why should I pay for it? I just book flights that offer 2-4-2 seating in economy and stay away from the unpleasant 3-3-3. The A340 might disappear from the sky pretty soon, but the A330 will fly for many more years. I will always pick that one above the 787 for example.

Latest I heard is that most active LH A346 are here to stay for some more years.

na wrote:

Latest I heard is that most active LH A346 are here to stay for some more years.

In less than two years, SAN has gone from Condor to FRA x3 seasonally (767-300) to x5 with Lufthansa on an A340-300, and now THAT is being upgauged to an A340-600 three of our five days a week. Premium seat count went from 18-30 on the 763 (depending on which one was used), to 18-30-42, depending on the version, to 44-58 + 8F seats (still haven't figured out exactly how they are marketing those!), which means there is a very steady and reliable demand; however, keeping in mind the fact that 4-engine planes rarely are weight-restricted at SAN (and the nightmare of the A330 substitution and all the luggage left behind!), Lufthansa most definitely needs the A340 family here until their long-haul fleet includes an adequate replacement for the cargo capacity of the -600.

I wonder, though, if Lufthansa will ever send the A350 here many years from now.

MartijnNL wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

QuarkFly wrote:

But sadly, passenger comfort is being demeaned as a priority...it should be a higher one

It is... for those willing to PAY for it.

Why should I pay for it? I just book flights that offer 2-4-2 seating in economy and stay away from the unpleasant 3-3-3. The A340 might disappear from the sky pretty soon, but the A330 will fly for many more years. I will always pick that one above the 787 for example.

You've conflated about three different things from what I was talking about...

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

and the nightmare of the A330 substitution and all the luggage left behind!

When did that happen?

Seen LH sub the A333 several times... are you saying they've left "all" luggage behind each time, or was this some atypical 1off event?

LAX772LR wrote:

MartijnNL wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

It is... for those willing to PAY for it.

Why should I pay for it? I just book flights that offer 2-4-2 seating in economy and stay away from the unpleasant 3-3-3. (...)

You've conflated about three different things from what I was talking about...

What did I mix up?

Didn't you write something like "more comfort is available for those who pay for it"?

While I stated "more comfort is available for those who simply choose 2-4-2 seating instead of 3-3-3."

LAX772LR wrote:

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

and the nightmare of the A330 substitution and all the luggage left behind!

When did that happen?

Seen LH sub the A333 several times... are you saying they've left "all" luggage behind each time, or was this some atypical 1off event?

Going by what was discussed in one of the other threads, either "Lufthansa's Long-Haul Fleet Plans" or "San Diego 2018" thread (sorry, not sure), one of our fellow a.netters in the know mentioned that it has happened only twice since the commencement of SAN-FRA in March, 2018.

To clarify: Not every piece of luggage or cargo was left behind, but a great deal of it was. The image I was implying was that the employee was examining "all that luggage left behind" after the A330 was loaded to its capacity and was dispatched and cleared to depart.

As I'm sure you know, SAN has terrain clearance issues on departure: because of the hills of Point Loma, the requirement for airplanes is that if an engine goes out past what I believe to be is V2, the speed at which stopping is not possible anymore, the plane must be able to lift-off, clear the terrain, circle around, and return for a landing. Within North America, this has never been a problem for most 2-engine planes, but intercontinentally, this is a game changer - a 4-engine plane would only lose 25% of its thrust, versus the 2-engine losing 50% of its thrust.

This is probably why the A330 is only seen regularly by Hawaiian, as terrain issues aren't a problem on this route. But SAN is just too far from Europe for the A330, knowing its weight restrictions. But on the other hand, Lufthansa is willing to send it in if needed, thus avoiding a cancellation and the resulting headaches THAT would entail...

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

and the nightmare of the A330 substitution and all the luggage left behind!

When did that happen?

Seen LH sub the A333 several times... are you saying they've left "all" luggage behind each time, or was this some atypical 1off event?

Going by what was discussed in one of the other threads, either "Lufthansa's Long-Haul Fleet Plans" or "San Diego 2018" thread (sorry, not sure), one of our fellow a.netters in the know mentioned that it has happened only twice since the commencement of SAN-FRA in March, 2018.

To clarify: Not every piece of luggage or cargo was left behind, but a great deal of it was.

Gonna say that whatever was mentioned appears to have been greatly exaggerated.

Just texted a friend here who handles them, and he said that while there's been an offloading of cargo during the subs, they've had no significant issues at all with bags when the A330 is in...

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.

Based on your using 1 variant without the others means you have to include all the DC-10's as the MD11 was a direct variant of the DC-10 as the A340-500/600 were direct variants.

That makes: 386 DC-10', 60 KC10's & 200 MD-11's of all models. So 646 total built.
380 A340's with 377 delivered.

lightsaber wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Really need to retire all their A340 across the fleet and replaced it with 251t A330-900neo or A350-900/-1000 already.

You mean retire with 779s.


Lightsaber

Ewww, hell no.

LH520/521, MUC-MEX-MUC, was changed from an A350-600 to A350-900. In fact, the A359 is on it´s way from Germany to Mexico, over Québec, as I write this post.

When the last A340-600 at Lufthansa will be retired the crew will be picked up with a 747-400

na wrote:

Latest I heard is that most active LH A346 are here to stay for some more years.

I'm booked on a LH A346 (LH574, MUC to CPT) the end of November. Do you think I'll retain that booking?
Thanks,
Cary

Caryjack wrote:

na wrote:

Latest I heard is that most active LH A346 are here to stay for some more years.

I'm booked on a LH A346 (LH574, MUC to CPT) the end of November. Do you think I'll retain that booking?
Thanks,
Cary

Why do you think it would change? A dummy booking showed me that the A346 is still running the route.

BartSimpson wrote:

Why do you think it would change? A dummy booking showed me that the A346 is still running the route.

I thought it might change because I'd just finished reading the thread and saw many destinations that had been canceled, a list of 12 or so that remained, but nothing about CPT. I know that just because I have a booking confirmation doesn't mean that the A346 can't, or hadn't been changed to another type. I know that members here have better information then I so I thought I'd ask.

Thanks for taking the time,
Cary

Caryjack wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

Why do you think it would change? A dummy booking showed me that the A346 is still running the route.

I thought it might change because I'd just finished reading the thread and saw many destinations that had been canceled, a list of 12 or so that remained, but nothing about CPT. I know that just because I have a booking confirmation doesn't mean that the A346 can't, or hadn't been changed to another type. I know that members here have better information then I so I thought I'd ask.

Thanks for taking the time,
Cary

I have to eat my own words here (but I blame it on Lufthansa, of course...)

I just checked the printed time table for Winter 2018, and the flight has indeed changed to A359. So, it's online booking vs timetable and I have no idea what you will fly on.

Anyway, I wish you happy days in the greatest city on the planet!

MartijnNL wrote:

Didn't you write something like "more comfort is available for those who pay for it"?

While I stated "more comfort is available for those who simply choose 2-4-2 seating instead of 3-3-3."

But people aren't willing to do that if the more comfortable flight is more expensive. That's what LAX772LR was talking about.

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?

My impression is that the A343 was actually pretty good, and while the 77E was better, it was not by a huge margin. The A345 and A346, on the other hand, were less optimal. Still, they (or at least the A346) would have been successful had Boeing (and GE) not hit it out of the park with the 77W. This, I understand, was a surprise to everyone involved, including Boeing. They planned to beat the economics of the A346, but not by such a big margin. It was also a surprise that the GE90-110/115 was so good, as the original GE90 was the worst engine available on the 777.

LAX772LR wrote:

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

When did that happen?

Seen LH sub the A333 several times... are you saying they've left "all" luggage behind each time, or was this some atypical 1off event?

Going by what was discussed in one of the other threads, either "Lufthansa's Long-Haul Fleet Plans" or "San Diego 2018" thread (sorry, not sure), one of our fellow a.netters in the know mentioned that it has happened only twice since the commencement of SAN-FRA in March, 2018.

To clarify: Not every piece of luggage or cargo was left behind, but a great deal of it was.

Gonna say that whatever was mentioned appears to have been greatly exaggerated.

Just texted a friend here who handles them, and he said that while there's been an offloading of cargo during the subs, they've had no significant issues at all with bags when the A330 is in...

And while obstacle clearance when departing to the east at SAN can certainly
cause performance and weight penalties
it’s a rare day when a westbound departure over the ocean is not possible

BartSimpson wrote:

Caryjack wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

Why do you think it would change? A dummy booking showed me that the A346 is still running the route.

I thought it might change because I'd just finished reading the thread and saw many destinations that had been canceled, a list of 12 or so that remained, but nothing about CPT. I know that just because I have a booking confirmation doesn't mean that the A346 can't, or hadn't been changed to another type. I know that members here have better information then I so I thought I'd ask.

Thanks for taking the time,
Cary

I have to eat my own words here (but I blame it on Lufthansa, of course...)

I just checked the printed time table for Winter 2018, and the flight has indeed changed to A359. So, it's online booking vs timetable and I have no idea what you will fly on.

Anyway, I wish you happy days in the greatest city on the planet!

Thanks Bart, you're not wrong about the city, and the A346 was on the route. From SEA I completed 5 legs with LH flying on an A320, A380, A346, A343 and an A333 (connected in SFO, MUC & FRA). If I was playing with airplane cards I'd call that trip a royal straight flush.

I had a great 3 weeks in the Western Cape and came back with 35 bottles of wine and some nice paintings, which you can't get in Seattle.
Thanks again,
Cary

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.

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.

Yep.. and every single time I asked what killed the 3 holers era the world's answer in unisom was: 777 !!