IADFCO wrote:

I think I would have thoroughly hated a 10-abreast A340, if it existed.

How would that even have worked when 9-abreast is already obviously the limit?

crimsonchin wrote:

IADFCO wrote:

I think I would have thoroughly hated a 10-abreast A340, if it existed.

How would that even have worked when 9-abreast is already obviously the limit?

Come to think about it, while I know there were some 9abreast A330CEOs, did anyone ever attempt 9 in an A340? Hajj operations?

LAX772LR wrote:

crimsonchin wrote:

IADFCO wrote:

I think I would have thoroughly hated a 10-abreast A340, if it existed.

How would that even have worked when 9-abreast is already obviously the limit?

Come to think about it, while I know there were some 9abreast A330CEOs, did anyone ever attempt 9 in an A340? Hajj operations?

Airasia X operated two ex Air Canada A343s in their initial configuration but later refitted the cabin to a similar configuration to their A333s - the economy seats were 3-3-3.

A345 must be top 5 prettiest aircraft ever built. Didn't it hold the title of longest ranged airlner for a time?

And let's face it, "4 engines 4 long haul" is as catchy (and ridiculous) as "If it's not Boeing I ain't going"

AtomicGarden wrote:

A345 must be top 5 prettiest aircraft ever built. Didn't it hold the title of longest ranged airlner for a time?

And let's face it, "4 engines 4 long haul" is as catchy (and ridiculous) as "If it's not Boeing I ain't going"

Or like saying "If it's not an Airbus... I am going by bus"... LOL

The A343 is my favourite aircraft. It was my first long haul aircraft when I was 11 with CX (HKG - LHR; CX257) and I remember just how quiet and comfortable the cruise was and with CX's economy class product back then, it was an enjoyable trip!

AtomicGarden wrote:

And let's face it, "4 engines 4 long haul" is as catchy (and ridiculous) as "If it's not Boeing I ain't going"

"4 engines 4 long haul" also benefitted Boeing since it had the 747-400 at the time; so, it wasn't exclusive to Airbus aircraft.

lov this airbus … flew it with Olympic … nice machine …

What happened to Iberia s A340-600s?

jimmy9irons wrote:

What happened to Iberia s A340-600s?

Look here.

https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Iberia

Where were they stored/scrapped?

I’ve flown all variants
-200 Egyptair
-300 Virgin Atlantic, Kuwait Airways, Air Belgium, Air France
-500 Thai International, Singapore Airlines, Emirates
-600 Virgin Atlantic, Etihad Airways, Thai International

All memorable flights for the smooth and quiet ride. Fantastic machine. Classic four-holer!

I've flown on A340s 2 times:

A340-300 Iberia EC-HQF, JNB-MAD
A340-600 Lufthansa D-AIHZ, FRA-DTW

The A343 gets my vote for most aesthetically attractive commercial jet.

Considering the availability of airframes at rock bottom prices I'm surprised nobody was ever interested in a freighter conversion. You would think that someone would have wanted a cheaper alternative to a 777F that could carry more cargo further than a 767.

I thought I had flown on my last A340 until this past winter when I was fortunate enough to ride on Lufthansa's D-AIFD from BOS-FRA. Something about seeing that 4th engine out on the wing is magical. I was also fortunate to fly during a full moon, and got to experience some incredible views cloud-skimming in ghostly light on descent into FRA, Return flight was through Zurich on Swiss' A330 unfortunately, so who knows when my next -300 ride will be. Hopefully, though, I'll get on a -600 before they're retired to complete my collection:

A340-200: Royal Jordanian (2012)
A340-300: Air France (many times 2007-2014), Lufthansa (2023)
A340-500: Emirates (2011)

AtomicGarden wrote:

A345 must be top 5 prettiest aircraft ever built. Didn't it hold the title of longest ranged airlner for a time?

And let's face it, "4 engines 4 long haul" is as catchy (and ridiculous) as "If it's not Boeing I ain't going"

Totally agree!

AtomicGarden wrote:

A345 must be top 5 prettiest aircraft ever built. Didn't it hold the title of longest ranged airlner for a time?

I think it is the best looking A340 as its length vs wing span and engine size are in just about the right proportions.

Worked with LH for a while. We had the A340 into KUL around 1998. Couldn't carry much load compared to the B747 (with combis) we had previously but it used so much less fuel. The A340-200 had better payload but you maxed out your volume. The loading system was so much better that on the 747 where you had to move the locks for certain combinations of ULDs. On the A340s you had locks for all combinations.

Most pax loved it because of the seat config. 2-2-2 business and 2-4-2 economy on the 340 compared to the 2-3-2 business and 3-4-3 economy on the jumbos.

bug

B777LRF wrote:

I’ve been lucky to have passengered aboard every version of the A340

A340-200: Sabena
A340-300: Air France, BWIA, Emirates, Gulf Air, Lufthansa, SAS, Swiss
A340-500: Emirates
A340-600: Lufthansa

It has carried me over deserts and oceans, and up until the A380 provided by far the most comfortable and quiet ride. More than that the aircraft just looks right, and in my opinion the proportions of the A340-500 are simply second-to-none.

Getting hard to find one these days, otherwise it would still be the go-to option.

Likewise, I managed all 4 types

-200 : SAA
-300 : Cathay Pacific, Iberia, SAA
-500 : Etihad, Singapore Airlines
- 600 : Etihad, Iberia, Qatar Airways, Virgin Atlantic

All really quiet flights, much preferred over a 777.

alberchico wrote:

Considering the availability of airframes at rock bottom prices I'm surprised nobody was ever interested in a freighter conversion. You would think that someone would have wanted a cheaper alternative to a 777F that could carry more cargo further than a 767.

There are A332P2F, A333P2F, and A333BDSF on offer. The A333 converted freighter has the same volume as the A343 but much lower operating costs. Also, there are much more A330s built and available for conversion.

Articuno wrote:

alberchico wrote:

Considering the availability of airframes at rock bottom prices I'm surprised nobody was ever interested in a freighter conversion. You would think that someone would have wanted a cheaper alternative to a 777F that could carry more cargo further than a 767.

There are A332P2F, A333P2F, and A333BDSF on offer. The A333 converted freighter has the same volume as the A343 but much lower operating costs. Also, there are much more A330s built and available for conversion.

What about an A346 Freighter?

af773atmsp wrote:

Articuno wrote:

alberchico wrote:

Considering the availability of airframes at rock bottom prices I'm surprised nobody was ever interested in a freighter conversion. You would think that someone would have wanted a cheaper alternative to a 777F that could carry more cargo further than a 767.

There are A332P2F, A333P2F, and A333BDSF on offer. The A333 converted freighter has the same volume as the A343 but much lower operating costs. Also, there are much more A330s built and available for conversion.

What about an A346 Freighter?

With the 77W converted freighter arriving soon I think you can answer your question by yourself.

The A340 and the A380 are both examples that passenger preference comes second when airlines are choosing an aircraft type. The A340 is smoother and quieter than the 777, the A380 the most comfortable plane of all. Both fell for smarter, more economical, but NOT more comfortable alternatives.

The 340 was a real breakthrough in the 80's FRA-JFK on LH's night flight, LH 405. LH had been using the range challenged A310 twin. TWA was using 767's so twins were around, but it was a comforting feeling to have that new big four banger on the route. Slower than the 747's on LH 401 by 20 minutes maybe, but quiet and a big step up from the 310. I remember the early ones had some toilet overflows, but every aircraft has its teething issues, no? One captain told me it took off at cruise thrust for economy and to save engine wear. You do get the feeling it is just going to roll to Frankfurt, not fly.

sgbroimp wrote:

The 340 was a real breakthrough in the 80's FRA-JFK on LH's night flight, LH 405. LH had been using the range challenged A310 twin. TWA was using 767's so twins were around, but it was a comforting feeling to have that new big four banger on the route. Slower than the 747's on LH 401 by 20 minutes maybe, but quiet and a big step up from the 310. I remember the early ones had some toilet overflows, but every aircraft has its teething issues, no? One captain told me it took off at cruise thrust for economy and to save engine wear. You do get the feeling it is just going to roll to Frankfurt, not fly.

Even today's modern 787/A350 aren't as comfortable. A couple of years ago I flew BOS-MUC-BOS. The eastbound flight was on an A346 and return on an A359. The A346 was by far the quieter and most comfortable of the 2. And the 2 seats instead of 3 on the outside is also so much better.

ba319-131 wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

I’ve been lucky to have passengered aboard every version of the A340

A340-200: Sabena
A340-300: Air France, BWIA, Emirates, Gulf Air, Lufthansa, SAS, Swiss
A340-500: Emirates
A340-600: Lufthansa

It has carried me over deserts and oceans, and up until the A380 provided by far the most comfortable and quiet ride. More than that the aircraft just looks right, and in my opinion the proportions of the A340-500 are simply second-to-none.

Getting hard to find one these days, otherwise it would still be the go-to option.

Likewise, I managed all 4 types

-200 : SAA
-300 : Cathay Pacific, Iberia, SAA
-500 : Etihad, Singapore Airlines
- 600 : Etihad, Iberia, Qatar Airways, Virgin Atlantic

All really quiet flights, much preferred over a 777.

Didn't get to the -200 from what I can remember (many of my A34X flights came as a youngster...) but was able to get a few different operators overall

-300: Gulf Air, Swiss
-500: Etihad (probably my favorite Y-class flight ever)
-600: Iberia, Lufthansa, Etihad, South African Airways, Virgin

Hoping to grab a last ride on it with the LH -600's that were brought back into service.

We flew on Iberia’s first A340 in 1996. The crew proudly announced the fact we were on the newest high tech Airbus A340. To amateur eyes, it seemed like a clear European response to the Boeing 747.

Furthering the comparison, the EU was then brand new, making it seem more like a US style power. The Maastricht Treaty had come into force in late 1993. So it was a dynamic time in Europe.

Kind of strange how the market has changed and come full circle. A lot of people remember the Virgin Airlines slogan painted on the outboard engines of their A340-600 4 engines 4 long haul. I also seem to remember Airbus talking about the additional stress and load of a triple bogey that the 777 had compared to the A340 series as well. Now, the A350-1000 has a triple bogey similar to the 777 and 4 engine planes are a thing of the past today. I have flown on Lufthansa's A340-600 and found it to be very nice and quiet in business class. Kind of an old story, but I found it interesting to read.

https://www.seattlepi.com/business/arti ... 224769.php

sgbroimp wrote:

The 340 was a real breakthrough in the 80's FRA-JFK on LH's night flight, LH 405. LH had been using the range challenged A310 twin. TWA was using 767's so twins were around, but it was a comforting feeling to have that new big four banger on the route.

Your timeline is a bit off. LH and AF introduced the first A340s to service in March '93.

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a340-launch-customer/

Yes, I meant the 310 was in the 80's, but yes, early 90's for the 340 "breath of fresh air".