Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting Atmx2000 (Thread starter): Interesting problem. Airbus is claiming that it is the airlines' faults, but the airlines seem to suggest Airbus has incorrectly stated permissable weights. I wonder which airlines are complaining, given the limited number of A346 operators. Potentially it could lead to further cancellations of A346s. |
Quoting Zeke (Reply 10): Quoting EI321 (Reply 7): Very interesting development. I would have thought that per SQm of floor space, first class is the lightest of all classes when passengers & luggage is taken into account. 1 F class seat has a mass of about 10 Y class seats, catering mass is of a similar proportion. |
Quoting EI321 (Reply 7): I would have thought that per SQm of floor space, first class is the lightest of all classes when passengers & luggage is taken into account. |
Quoting Teva (Reply 4): From what I read above, only airlines are to blame for this. Weight & balance is something very simple. You must balance the front section with the weight you put in the rear section. The maximum you can put in those sections is fixed. So, if airlines decide to install heavier equipment on the main deck of their nose section, it automatically reduces by the same amount the weight you can put in the holds just under. This is just to keep the aircraft in balance with the rear section. And it is the same for any aircraft, not only Airbus This aircraft has been in operation for years. Airlines had the figures. So, if they have problems ith their new interiors, they are the only ones to blame, because they made the mis-calculations when choosing their new interiors. Teva |
Quoting Teva (Reply 4): From what I read above, only airlines are to blame for this. Weight & balance is something very simple. |
Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 16): Interestingly enough it was LH who was out front on this issue some time ago. Performance at medium/long ranges with forward CG caused noticeably more fuel burn than predicted by Airbus. The crux of the problem is that many in service A340-600's have lower deck crew, catering, and passenger amenities that are fixed and can not be changed. |
Quoting Zeke (Reply 1): all I can say is that in the years we have operated the 346, we have not had forward CG issues. |
Quoting Stitch (Reply 3): You work for CX, correct? Are there plans to update the current F and J seats with the new (and presumably heavier) suite and seat product? |
Quoting Atmx2000 (Thread starter): This is also something to ponder in regards to further stretches of the 777 and the A350-1000 or suggested 787-11. |
Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 23): Actually, if this is a problem, it sounds to me that this is not an Airbus-specific problem, but rather an issue that would come up for any existing, ultra-long fuselage when upgrades of heavy first and business class seats that were not originally envisioned for the type are installed. |
Quoting Teva (Reply 4): From what I read above, only airlines are to blame for this. |
Quoting Stitch (Reply 21): LH uses underfloor crew rest and lavs on their A346's, do they not? |
Quoting Jetfan727 (Reply 19): And YES the vast majority of A340-600 users ARE happy with them, regretfully for the too many A340-600 bashers around !!! |
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 24): I wonder if this has had any impact on Airbus's thinking with regards to crew rests and other cargo deck facilities in the A350XWB. |
Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 28): Does the 340 not have the capability to offer crew rest areas above the main cabin, as is the case with the 777? |
Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 28): Does the 340 not have the capability to offer crew rest areas above the main cabin, as is the case with the 777? |
Quoting 777fan (Reply 14): I would surmise that Airbus is at fault since they presumably installed the F and C class seats; they had to know what they were going to weigh, should have done the calculations and in turn, told the respective carriers "yes, that's okay", or "no, you can't put that there". Either way, sucks to be the affected carriers. |
Quoting Atmx2000 (Thread starter): Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues |
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 27): Glancing at the replies, has anyone considered just moving the premium cabin to the center of the aircraft? It would weird to have an economy cabin, followed by premium seats, followed by economy seats, but it should solve the problem, no? |
Quoting Baroque (Reply 8): Not if the pax are allowed to bring on their egos as cabin baggage. |
Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 23): Actually, if this is a problem, it sounds to me that this is not an Airbus-specific problem, but rather an issue that would come up for any existing, ultra-long fuselage when upgrades of heavy first and business class seats that were not originally envisioned for the type are installed. |
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 27): That isn't even 60% |
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 30): Mr. Leahy's counter argument was to say that the 777 was providing crew rests in the overhead storage bins. |
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 27): Glancing at the replies, has anyone considered just moving the premium cabin to the center of the aircraft? It would weird to have an economy cabin, followed by premium seats, followed by economy seats, but it should solve the problem, no? |
Quoting Stitch (Reply 21): Are CG issues one of the reasons LH does not offer First Class on their A346 fleet? (That I can find from seatguru.com and seatexpert.com.) |
Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 22): Describing the 340-600 as spaghetti w/ wings doesn't provide much reassurance |
Quoting Coa747 (Reply 34): Funny how some people on this forum defend the A340-600 to the death saying what a great airplane it is. |
Quoting Coa747 (Reply 34): just ask Emirates who canceled their big order, Virgin who was the 4 engine for the long haul poster child oh and you can throw in Thai as well. |
Quoting Jetfan727 (Reply 37):
VS / LH / IB / CX / TG are all sooooooo unhappy with their A340-600s. And Emirates has now become the world's reference..... |
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 27): Of the twelve airlines who have ordered the A340-600, five have "defected" to the 773ER. Do you really consider 7 out of 12 a demonstration of satisfaction amongst the "vast majority" of the A340-600 customers? That isn't even 60% |
Quoting Jetfan727 (Reply 37): VS / LH / IB / CX / TG are all sooooooo unhappy with their A340-600s. |
Quoting Jetfan727 (Reply 37): Funny how some people on this forum keep on criticizing it.... |
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 33): Ah but then all those premium customers would complain about cabin noise. |
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 33): Anyway, I have a hard time believing the economy cabin is lighter. Even if the C seats are heavier, the weight of 34 additional passengers should make up for that. |
Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 40): Ok so EK AC and CX would be three. Who are the other two?... |
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 41): so be careful who you reference... |
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 41):
If the weight of the first/business seats are indeed causing the nose-down torque, there is only one conclusion to be drawn: there is not an equal and opposing torque (mass*arm length) working to keep the A346 in equilibrium. The reason for that imbalance must relate to the mass distribution aft of the COG/COL, which would point directly at the weight of the economy cabin. |
Quoting Bluewhale18210 (Reply 44):
Now if the aircraft is too heavy in the front then put heavy stuff in the back! I can't believe all the stuff a plane carry would be the same density. An LD3 full of bags weight 800-900KG, and if a cargo can only weighs 500KG, put it in the front and put the bags in the back! Fill up the back before filling up the front, and you'll come out OK. |
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 41):
Would they? The A340 cabin environment is quieter across the length of the cabin than its competitors anyway, so it would not put A346 operators at a disadvantage versus the 777. |
Quoting Jetfan727 (Reply 43): QR is even still in the process of taking delivery of their A340-600s. They like them a lot, |
Quoting Jetfan727 (Reply 43): As for AC, they finally did not take them because they suddenly realized that being in a dire financial situationt at that time they just could not afford being delivered any plane for some time. |
Quoting Jetfan727 (Reply 43): I am careful. Are you ? |
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 46): It's clear as day that the 777 is preferred at QR. |
Quoting Coa747 (Reply 34): Shouldn't CG issues have been considered during the construction by Airbus. I would have thought they would consider maximum load and what that would do to CG. Funny how some people on this forum defend the A340-600 to the death saying what a great airplane it is. Wonder why you don't hear any customers complain about the 777-300ER? I guess because it peforms as advertised for ALL airlines not just a few. Apparently the same can not be said for the A340-600 or we wouldn't keep hearing these stories and complaints from airlines. Sooner or later you have to wake up and realize the A340-600 and 500 were big loosers for Airbus and that isn't my opinion, just ask Emirates who canceled their big order, Virgin who was the 4 engine for the long haul poster child oh and you can throw in Thai as well. |
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 41): Seriously, is there any wonder why? No aircraft has been this out-classed so rapidly after EIS since the MD-11. |
Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 22): I have been wondering just how heavy those first class suites are. In an age where airlines are looking to strip any unnecessary weight from an aircraft, it is interesting that they are clamoring to install these large, bulky -- and apparently very heavy -- units. |
Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 51): The A346 is an ill-conceived design with a lousy structural efficiency and too many engines, resulting in a voracious appetite for fuel. Airlines knew it when they bought it |
Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 51): resulting in a voracious appetite for fuel. Airlines knew it when they bought it. They couldn't foresee the hike in oil prices |