Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15912
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 5:26 am

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 28):
I have seen pictures of large rest room facilities down a flight of stairs at the back of 340's as well. I suppose this creates more space for low-yield, revenue seating, however it takes up cargo capacity, one would imagine.

The crew rest replaced the bulk cargo space in the rear, it does not use the normal aft cargo space. The rear (bulk) cargo space has a maximum load of 3468 kg. The crew rest normally has a empty mass in the range of 1500 kg.

Quoting Coa747 (Reply 34):
Wonder why you don't hear any customers complain about the 777-300ER?

We have had issues with our aircraft, I don't know of they have been resolved. The main issue was another floor had to be installed ontop of the Boeing floor to accommodate the F seats, it cost a couple of 1000 kg, and a number of strategies were looked at including moving the forward lav, and upper crew rest in order to fix the issue both in terms of CG control and being overweight.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 41):

CX has placed an order for 18 773ER despite already operating the A346, so be careful who you reference...

CX extended the lease on the 346 after the 773ER was ordered.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 51):
Yeah ,alright...it is obvious that this article was 'authored' by a complete ...ahem... with only a vague understanding of how planes fly.

Yes and very little knowledge of the 346 systems which has active CG control in flight to keep the CG 2% forward of the aft boundary by varying the amount of fuel in the horizontal stab. Fuel is also in the horizontal stab on takeoff. If an airline had CG issues on takeoff, to me the simple fix is to have more fuel in the horizontal stab which has a tank capacity of about 6.5t.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 5:32 am

Quoting Jetfan727 (Reply 37):
A kind of a stupid description to say the least, even more surprising since it comes from someone within the airliner industry.The A340-600 is a perfectly safe aircraft to fly on.

I thought so too!

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 38):
The committee questioned whether it was commercially sound to fly Airbus A 340-500 and Airbus 340-600 aircrafts on the two loss-making routes as they were extremely energy inefficient.



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.

I did not realize the 340 is "extremely energy inefficient" or that it has a "voracious" appetite for fuel. I was under the impression that the plane was simply not as fuel efficient as the 777. I am no expert and don't read a.net daily so forgive me if this is common knowledge here on a.net. So is the 340 really extremely fuel inefficient?
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 5:33 am

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 52):
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

From the tone I would say just a little 'sarcastic'

Absolutely no sarcasm intended. The 346 had trumped the 777 in payload range until the advent of the 773ER. Since then the 346 is obsolete. The hike infuel prices only aggravated the problem.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 5:47 am

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 39):
I do not see this as a problem for Airbus although the airlines are now understanding what it costs to dispense with the services of a competent weights engineer and are pointing the finger everywhere but at themselves

i'm with Dougloid on this one. Clearly the carriers who are having the problem did not do sufficient workups of how they planned to operate the type before buying it or more likely the technical types were over ridden by the bean counters who figured that the trade off was worth it. Of course the extended period of plus $60 a barrel oil has caught them out. No doubt the "what ifs" group did not apply sufficient probabilty to this scenario.
This assumes of course that A. did not find it necesary to revise the CG data belatedly.  twocents 
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:30 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 53):
Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 28):
I have seen pictures of large rest room facilities down a flight of stairs at the back of 340's as well. I suppose this creates more space for low-yield, revenue seating, however it takes up cargo capacity, one would imagine.

The crew rest replaced the bulk cargo space in the rear, it does not use the normal aft cargo space. The rear (bulk) cargo space has a maximum load of 3468 kg. The crew rest normally has a empty mass in the range of 1500 kg.

However, the LH lower lobe lavs, economy galley and crew rest eat up nearly all the aft ULD capability.

It would be interesting to know if LH is one of the airlines considering a suit against Airbus.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2739
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:13 am

I think the question is how "honest" Airbus was with the airlines about the A346 specs.

The lawsuit I am sure will rely on proving that Airbus mis-represented the A346, and its performance with options. I think the key is in the options certain airlines took. Did Airbus in thier marketing and technical doccuments indicate the the CG issues that would be caused by them. If they failed to do so, then Airbus is going to have some trouble.

The next issue is the CG allowances... did Airbus market the plane with false technical data? This appears to be atleast one airlines reason to sue. They fly within the allowable CG range, but suffer excessive fuel burn that Airbus did not warn about in these outer edges.

Of course it seems that from various statements that the airlines and certain people here have made, that its fairly common that planes with the rear underfloor faclities fly near or in this conditon when fully loaded. I think Airbus would have some defense if it was rare, or the pure result of airline decisions.
 
Boogyjay
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 8:25 am

I think this is an airline issue here, as all data are available in the Weight & Balance Manual. The A346 could possibly be too restrictive as to CG, but the airlines accepted to buy the aircraft based on the specs Airbus gave them.
Of course, this is a totally different issue if Airbus did...

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 58):
... market the plane with false technical data



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 58):
I think the question is how "honest" Airbus was with the airlines about the A346 specs.

 checkmark 

I see LH being the one having the most problems as it has both of these issues :
1/ As others have said, they have lots of -relatively- light features in the aft cargo hold
2/ LH do not have IFE in Y/C which means lighter zones than First of Business zones.

Designing cabin mods, I have the actual weights of different seat groups used in F/C, B/C and Y/C zones and I can tell you that with all the IFE stuffs (IFE boxes -up to one per double seat-, ISPS boxes, screens, cables, aircraft distribution units) Y/C can be very very heavy, often more than the fwd zones.
This is due to airlines now providing the same services in all zones (e.g. AVOD) : system-wise, a Y/C seat is the same as a B/C or F/C seat. So you need the same units multiplied by the number of pax.

In one instance, we even had big troubles at the back of the aircraft as because of these heavy seats, we were exceeding Boeing's allowable static floor load.

This is why I believe the Y/C zones can often be heavier than the fwd zones, when the same IFE amenities are provided. The Y/C density requires more equipment and that offsets the fact that B/C seats are heavier than Y/C seats per pax.
 
RoyalAtlantis
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:02 am

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 8:49 am

This question ought to insite some serious elitism....

But...if the F/C cabins are so heavy but they want to keep the planes, why don't these airlines move these cabins to the center of the aircraft? I recall that for a period of time, TG's F was sandwiched between their C and Y on their DC10's and even MD11's as i recall.

Another point...for those of us who have flown Y on the A346 and hit turbulence...i am telling you that the way that plane bends makes you feel like it's going to snap in half...it's nuts and i'll never fly another one again...my preference...no blazing please from the Airbus lovers.

If they could trade one-for-one, my conjecture would be that most of the A346 operators would switch to 77W's...it's an amazing airplane.
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10134
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 9:30 am

Considering how big EKs seats are, I'm starting to wonder if they are pleased they cancelled (or did they delay?) their order.
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
jetfan727
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:33 am

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:09 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 46):
rookie



Quoting Zeke (Reply 53):
CX extended the lease on the 346 after the 773ER was ordered

Before playing "Mr I know it all" you might want to check your sources, as your erroneous comments about CX seem to prove. Seems your knowledge of commercial aviation is as limited as your good manners...
 
atmx2000
Topic Author
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:18 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 57):
It would be interesting to know if LH is one of the airlines considering a suit against Airbus.

Who ever it is, they are likely just negotiating through the press.

Quoting Jetfan727 (Reply 62):

Before playing "Mr I know it all" you might want to check your sources, as your erroneous comments about CX seem to prove. Seems your knowledge of commercial aviation is as limited as your good manners...

His comments haven't been erroneous. He never said they were getting rid of the A346s. He, like I, noted that they chose to order a large number of 773ERs despite having A346s in the fleet already. That isn't a vote of confidence in the A346.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
jetfan727
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:33 am

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:26 am

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 63):
That isn't a vote of confidence in the A346.

Nobody can negate the fact that the A346 is far from being a commercial success. The B773ER has indeed given it a hard time . But that does not make the A346 a bad plane, neither do all airlines which are operating it try to get rid of it ASAP, as you often read around here....
 
777fan
Posts: 2256
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:09 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:38 am

Quoting Acheron (Reply 31):
Then they would get sued for not abiding to the carriers' wishes, contract and whatnot.

That's ridiculous. If they (Airbus) weren't able to make it work to the customers' specs, the carriers most likely wouldn't have placed the order in the first place. Airbus, in turn, would've had to make adjustments or face any existing orders being canceled. Tough cookies for Airbus: offer a product to suit the customers' needs or lose orders to someone who will (simple economics).


777fan
DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5719
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:48 am

It is fairly obvious to me that the longer a plane's fuselage is the more sensitive it will be as to CG issues. The airlines know this as well as Airbus, and so I agree with the posters who say that the only valid basis for a lawsuit would be if Airbus misrepresented something. Also, as a rabid Boeing partisan, it is my impression that the A346 is a very good aircraft and passengers seem to love it, but the 773ER is more efficient, and so the airlines prefer it. Does anyone (Zeke?) have any figures as to what the fuel burn comparison is between the two?
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
zoom1018
Posts: 201
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 2:59 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:55 am

Quoting Jetfan727 (Reply 62):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 53):CX extended the lease on the 346 after the 773ER was orderedBefore playing "Mr I know it all" you might want to check your sources, as your erroneous comments about CX seem to prove. Seems your knowledge of commercial aviation is as limited as your good manners...

You have to take into account one thing: the 773ER may not be arriving soon enough for CX to effectively phrase the A346 out!
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:04 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 66):
Does anyone (Zeke?) have any figures as to what the fuel burn comparison is between the two?

Search the archives; some of Widebodyphotog's tables will give you a pretty good idea.
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:21 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 57):
It would be interesting to know if LH is one of the airlines considering a suit against Airbus.

I would guess that LH would be one of the operators included. Their grievance may center around how Airbus placed the Aerodynamic C/P so far back on the airplane creating huge moment arms for just about anything loaded in the forward part of the airplane resulting in large CG shifts with normal loads. That compounded with the fact that in the LH configuration a token weight and number of ULD can be loaded aft to offset forward loads. I can't say weather or not Airbus did their homework and analyzed each carriers configuration from an operational point of view but their were/are problems with CG that limited revenue loads and increased fuel burn slightly. If they did not do their homework then the operators may have some grounds for a claim.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 53):
Fuel is also in the horizontal stab on takeoff. If an airline had CG issues on takeoff, to me the simple fix is to have more fuel in the horizontal stab which has a tank capacity of about 6.5t.

Yes but if your LH with only the capability to load limited weight in aft hold that 6.5t on it's short arm is not going to offset even 6t loaded forward. It's very easy to formulate scenarios where an airplane with a low load in Y class and high average cargo load is going to be in excess of the fuel ballasting system to compensate for. The LH ships lower holds configurations really narrows the margins in terms of CG control.

Quoting Coa747 (Reply 34):
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.

Admittedly CG control was a potential issue before the 777-300ER went in to service in great numbers. However Boeing worked with the carriers and came up with solutions. Additionally some CG issues kind of solved themselves as most 777-300ER operators are hauling massive cargo loads (as in up to 40t) and 10-12 pallet positions routinely. The availability of loadable positions and configurations on the airplanes gives load controllers the flexibility to avoid extreme CG situations when at full revenue loads and at light loads CG is not an issue. There were fears mind you, as the airplane's static CG is forward when empty but you have a huge hold at the back of the airplane with long moment arms relative to C/P that easily compensate for the forward loads. It will be interesting to see what happens when the 777-300ER goes into longer range service on the South Pacific...



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:03 pm

Fairly full article here detailing the basis of the argument (the airlines putting in too much weight up-front, or alternatively Airbus forecasting a too-high estimate of achievable front-end weight). Also provides some (pretty staggering) estimated figures.

"Airbus has recommended that airlines carry about five tonnes less cargo in the front of the plane to compensate, a reduction of nearly 10 per cent in its total cargo capacity.

"Airbus says that the airlines are to blame for fitting premium cabins with full-sized beds, heavy furniture and weighty entertainment systems.

"However, aviation sources have told The Times that a number of airlines are insisting that it is Airbus's error. The airlines believe Airbus has incorrectly stated the maximum weight for front-end cabins and they are considering suing for lost cargo income.

"Recent estimates show that a commercial airliner flying one tonne overweight costs the equivalent of 12 passengers everyday. Assuming that the A340600s are flying five tonnes overweight, each jet is losing income equivalent to 21,900 passengers a year.

"If the airlines can prove their case, they could claim hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation from Airbus."


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...ory/0,20867,21522209-23349,00.html
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:10 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 70):
Fairly full article here detailing the basis of the argument (the airlines putting in too much weight up-front, or alternatively Airbus forecasting a too-high estimate of achievable front-end weight). Also provides some (pretty staggering) estimated figures.

"Airbus has recommended that airlines carry about five tonnes less cargo in the front of the plane to compensate, a reduction of nearly 10 per cent in its total cargo capacity.

"Airbus says that the airlines are to blame for fitting premium cabins with full-sized beds, heavy furniture and weighty entertainment systems.

"However, aviation sources have told The Times that a number of airlines are insisting that it is Airbus's error. The airlines believe Airbus has incorrectly stated the maximum weight for front-end cabins and they are considering suing for lost cargo income.

"Recent estimates show that a commercial airliner flying one tonne overweight costs the equivalent of 12 passengers everyday. Assuming that the A340600s are flying five tonnes overweight, each jet is losing income equivalent to 21,900 passengers a year.

"If the airlines can prove their case, they could claim hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation from Airbus."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au....html

I referred this one to my old boss who was my supervisor in weights engineering and he is more worried about shear moments in that loooooooooooong fuselage. It seems the folding beds are a long way from the front spar.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
MD-90
Posts: 7836
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:11 pm

Quoting Jetfan727 (Reply 62):
Before playing "Mr I know it all" you might want to check your sources, as your erroneous comments about CX seem to prove.

You don't seem to be aware of which airline he flies for, are you?
 
atmx2000
Topic Author
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:11 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 70):
Fairly full article here detailing the basis of the argument (the airlines putting in too much weight up-front, or alternatively Airbus forecasting a too-high estimate of achievable front-end weight). Also provides some (pretty staggering) estimated figures.

It's the same article.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:21 pm

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 73):
It's the same article.

Sorry - can't raise the Times on here, unless I register; that's from 'The Australian.' But the bits I quoted certainly seem to clarify the question of who is claiming what?

Can't help feeling that there may be a 'disconnect' between Airbus sales and Airbus engineering. Boeing under-claiming and over-providing on performance, and Airbus arguably doing the opposite, seems to be developing into something of a pattern?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2382
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:54 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 53):
If an airline had CG issues on takeoff, to me the simple fix is to have more fuel in the horizontal stab which has a tank capacity of about 6.5t.

G'day Zeke  ,

Is the fuel distribution to the stab tank something that the airlines themselves could readily adjust? It seems as though Airbus themselves would be the only ones with enough jurisdiction to effect such an important change. Fueling charts I have seen for the A330 / 340 seem to indicate that the amount of fuel that goes into the stab is a fixed function of the total fuel onboard. Is there a function on the A330 / 340 that allows the fuelling of the stab tank to be adjusted with respect to a certain C of G or the projected take off C of G?

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 41):
If you place exactly 50% of the economy cabin ahead of the wing, followed by the entire premium cabin, followed by the remaining 50% of the economy cabin, you achieve balance no matter what the absolute masses of the various cabin features are.

I'm not too sure about this paragraph DFW. It seems that this method of "balance" only addresses the moment arm of the various cabin zones. The effect of a mass on the C of G of an aircraft depends on both the moment arm and the magnitude of that mass. I would suspect that the achievement of a satisfactory C of G would be impossible unless the absolute masses of the cabin features were considered.

Anyhow, I know this is hardly a scientific view on the issue, but the A346 has always seemed to me to proportionally have a very long forward fuselage section when compared to the A345. I have tried to post some A'net pictures of this but the server will not allow me to!

Regards, JetMech

[Edited 2007-04-08 07:56:58]
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
jetfan727
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:33 am

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 4:37 pm

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 72):
You don't seem to be aware of which airline he flies for, are you?

Indeed I am not.
 
Boogyjay
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 5:28 pm

Quoting BoogyJay (Reply 59):
I see LH being the one having the most problems

... And it's pretty interesting to note that LH is the only airline having recently renewed their committment to the type with their order for 7 A346 in Dec.
That shows that, if they indeed have operating problems with the A346 (which, we should not forget, remains to be confirmed), LH really is starving for capacity...
And also that taking delivery of the type early + saving on crew/mx training outweighted the benefits of introducing a new more efficient type (B773ER of course).
 
SailorOrion
Posts: 1960
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2001 5:56 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 5:48 pm

I'm not sure about LH being really unhappy with the A340-600, as they have place two follow-on orders meanwhile, worth 14 units. Would have been perfectly enough to go for a 77W fleet, so why didn't they do it? It might be because they're happy with their 346s, it might be because the price is right (you can buy a shitload of fuel for ten million bucks), and don't give me the "political" reason, because the 748 order proves sufficiently that LH is not really a "politically-correct" carrier.

LH ordered their first batch of A340-600 with a two class layout. (10 units, normal seating 66/279, with the option to refit it to 72/263), called "346" in LH terms.

The second batch (7 units) has a three class layout, 8/60/238, called the 34D.

It's not yet known (decided?) how the third batch of 7 units will be configured.

All units have a galley, a crew rest area and 5 lavs in the lower deck.

But if we have a look at real-world fuel consumption (per RPK) figures for LH's network, we notice:
1) the A340-600 (total) is 1.5% more fuel efficient than the 747-400. That figure is from 2005, no three-class layout 34D was operated iirc. This isn't a very impressive figure for a plane that is about two decades newer.
2) The A340-600 consumes 5% more fuel than the A340-300.
3) The A340-300 is 2% more fuel efficient than the A330-300 and 9% more fuel efficient than the A330-200. I find those figures particularly interesting, especially considering the seat layout of the A330-300 is identical to the most-used seat layout of the A340-300. Having four engines is apparently not that much of a disadvantage as often said. I don't think the load factors between the two types differ greatly.
4) For fuel efficiency, the most important factor is seat/passenger count. The A330-200 at Thomas Cook UK needs 37% less fuel per PKM than the same airplane in LH livery.

SailorOrion
 
musapapaya
Posts: 1036
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:02 am

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:49 pm

Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 78):
1) the A340-600 (total) is 1.5% more fuel efficient than the 747-400. That figure is from 2005, no three-class layout 34D was operated iirc. This isn't a very impressive figure for a plane that is about two decades newer.
2) The A340-600 consumes 5% more fuel than the A340-300.
3) The A340-300 is 2% more fuel efficient than the A330-300 and 9% more fuel efficient than the A330-200. I find those figures particularly interesting, especially considering the seat layout of the A330-300 is identical to the most-used seat layout of the A340-300. Having four engines is apparently not that much of a disadvantage as often said. I don't think the load factors between the two types differ greatly.
4) For fuel efficiency, the most important factor is seat/passenger count. The A330-200 at Thomas Cook UK needs 37% less fuel per PKM than the same airplane in LH livery.

I found all these very unbelivable. I dont mean that I doubt the integrity of your figures, but especially points 1, 3 and 4. They seem to give a very strong point that we cant just judge a plane based on 'normal belives'.
 
trex8
Posts: 5671
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 8:45 pm

Quoting Jetfan727 (Reply 62):
Before playing "Mr I know it all" you might want to check your sources, as your erroneous comments about CX seem to prove. Seems your knowledge of commercial aviation is as limited as your good manners...

well I'll take the info from someone who flies that particular plane for that particular airline over the general a.net wisdom any day

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 74):
Can't help feeling that there may be a 'disconnect' between Airbus sales and Airbus engineering.

sort of like the B sales people saying the 787 engine change is a real easy swap and its now a pylon change as well taking a day or two - or so people were saying on the yahoo orders forum? admittedly not a major operational issue and certainly Bs recent performance is an A in regards to actual flying performance and As is less than B grade.
 
EI321
Posts: 5070
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:44 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 41):
Quoting Jetfan727 (Reply 37):
VS / LH / IB / CX / TG are all sooooooo unhappy with their A340-600s.

CX has placed an order for 18 773ER despite already operating the A346, so be careful who you reference...

fuel burn

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 41):
Quoting Jetfan727 (Reply 37):
Funny how some people on this forum keep on criticizing it....

Seriously, is there any wonder why? No aircraft has been this out-classed so rapidly after EIS since the MD-11.

fuel burn
 
trex8
Posts: 5671
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:34 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 81):
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 41):Quoting Jetfan727 (Reply 37):Funny how some people on this forum keep on criticizing it....Seriously, is there any wonder why? No aircraft has been this out-classed so rapidly after EIS since the MD-11. fuel burn

the MD11 is IMHO not a good comparison as MDC just simply didn't hit their projected fuel burn performance figures at all when the MD11 entered service. the A345/6 problem is not that they are way off what was projected, its that with fuel prices as they are, the even a small difference compared to the 77W easily swings the operational costs in the 777s favor.
 
User avatar
OA260
Posts: 25341
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:50 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:27 am

Quoting Atmx2000 (Thread starter):
The first and business class sections on some A340600s are so heavy that they are pushing the jet’s nose down during flight, which can play havoc with the aerodynamics and potentially endanger passengers and crew.

Im an Airbus fan but if I was a passenger reading this article I would be very alarmed. All you need is a mistake forgetting to load 5 tonnes less and then some other elements then a serious incident. This is not good for Airbus or the Airlines and it needs sorted. Those LH seats and EK seats are very heavy . Im wondering if theres a way they can shed some of the weight on those units to compensate.

One thing though as mentioned above , QR seem very happy with theirs.
 
jetfan727
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:33 am

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:40 am

Quoting OA260 (Reply 83):
I would be very alarmed

You may be assured that there is absolutely no reason to be alarmed whatsoever. If there is one safe plane, this is the one.

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 82):
the A345/6 problem is not that they are way off what was projected, its that with fuel prices as they are, the even a small difference compared to the 77W easily swings the operational costs in the 777s favor.

Finally someone who said it the right way
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2739
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:44 am

Quoting OA260 (Reply 83):
Im an Airbus fan but if I was a passenger reading this article I would be very alarmed. All you need is a mistake forgetting to load 5 tonnes less and then some other elements then a serious incident

Its not a real safety issue, since its known, and within legal CG limits even loaded with the extra weight forward.

The extra fuel burn is a concern for some routes, routes that I don't think the A346 fly. Basicly the ones that can't be flown on ETOPS 180/207 are the ones this might matter, since that indicates a lack of diversion airports.

I do not however know that the A346 is used on any flights that are truly out of the ETOPS ranges, and if they are, well me being "paranoid" I would say your safety is lower on those routes period since you are farther from help, and have to go farther once things start to go wrong.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15912
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Is

Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 am

Quoting RoyalAtlantis (Reply 60):
Another point...for those of us who have flown Y on the A346 and hit turbulence...i am telling you that the way that plane bends makes you feel like it's going to snap in half...it's nuts and i'll never fly another one again...my preference...no blazing please from the Airbus lovers.

Somehow I dont think you have flown on a 345/346. The aft end hardly moves around at all, out of all the airbus aircraft that are in service it has the most stable aft end. The aircraft has a number of accelerometers in it for vertical and horizontal movement which it automatically dampens, it is what the coin the "structural mode dampening". Airbus specifically added accelerometers and changed the control system to cater for this on the 346, it works well.

Quoting Jetfan727 (Reply 62):
Before playing "Mr I know it all" you might want to check your sources, as your erroneous comments about CX seem to prove.

I have been operating 744/333/343/346 aircraft for several years with a large south east asian operator. Generally fly the 346 once every month or so, I feel I have a reasonable grasp of the aircraft from the coal face.

Could I ask what your background is to make such an observation ?

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 66):
(Zeke?) have any figures as to what the fuel burn comparison is between the two?

Went back at my notes, for a ULH flight taking off at MTOW we averaged about 8.8t per hr for a 16 hr flight, covering about 8600 nm.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 69):
The LH ships lower holds configurations really narrows the margins in terms of CG control.

Had a look at some figures from a past trip I did, taking off at MTOW our GWCG was about 25%, the forward limit is about 18%, aft limit is about 35%, in cruise with the fuel transfer and automatic CG control to reduce fuel burn, the CG remained at about 33%.

Quoting JetMech (Reply 75):

Is the fuel distribution to the stab tank something that the airlines themselves could readily adjust?

You can do anything you like, you can have whatever distribution you like with a manual load, which one may have to do for some MEL items, so I cannot see why you cannot do it for some loading configurations.

Quoting Musapapaya (Reply 79):
I found all these very unbelivable. I dont mean that I doubt the integrity of your figures, but especially points 1, 3 and 4. They seem to give a very strong point that we cant just judge a plane based on 'normal belives'.

from http://konzern.lufthansa.com/en/html...uns/flotte/pop_airbus_340-600.html

"The world's longest passenger aircraft, the A340-600, has been in service with Lufthansa since December 2003. It is equipped with extremely powerful yet quiet Rolls Royce Trent 500 engines. As a result, the A340-600 requires only 3.6 litres of fuel to transport one passenger 100 kilometres."

from http://konzern.lufthansa.com/en/html...en/app/show/en/2006/12/636/HOM&s=0

"The new B747-8 will burn an average of around 3.5 litres to fly one passenger 100 kilometres, setting new standards in fuel efficiency."

So LH are saying the difference between a 747-8i and A340-600 in terms of fuel burn is 0.1 litres to fly one passenger 100 kilometres, in the LH configuration. My emphasis on the LH configuration, it will not be like that for all operators, depending on their configuration.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
EI321
Posts: 5070
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:04 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 86):
So LH are saying the difference between a 747-8i and A340-600 in terms of fuel burn is 0.1 litres to fly one passenger 100 kilometres, in the LH configuration. My emphasis on the LH configuration, it will not be like that for all operators, depending on their configuration.

Does that suggest the the 747-8 will have higher fuel burn per passenger than the 777-300ER?
 
jetfan727
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:33 am

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:17 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 86):
Could I ask what your background is to make such an observation ?

The reply of mine you are quoting was definitely not directed at you but at another participant under the name DfwRevolution. My apologies for the confusion. As for my background, it is also related to this trade, no real need to say more.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15135
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:19 am

Quoting Atmx2000 (Thread starter):
Quoting the article: Airlines are considering suing Airbus after the aircraft manufacturer warned them that the front-end of the A340-600 was dangerously overweight, The Times has learnt.

See, if this is the truth, then all the other arguments on this page are missing this important part. AIRBUS WARNED THEM about problems, and one has to infer that this is a RECENT warning and thus not what was originally agreed to/promised/signed off on by Airbus.

Again, if that part of the article has truth to it, it's a new event, and that's why some carriers are considering suing.

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 80):
well I'll take the info from someone who flies that particular plane for that particular airline over the general a.net wisdom any day

You believe everything that particular pilots says if you want to, but he's very pro-airbus biased and makes no bones about that preference, so just take that into account too.

If everything were as great with all the Airbus products as he says it is, the A346 would be selling like hotcakes and the A380 would be at 400 orders by now...  Wink
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5719
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:26 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 86):
Went back at my notes, for a ULH flight taking off at MTOW we averaged about 8.8t per hr for a 16 hr flight, covering about 8600 nm.

Thanks for the info, but what I was looking for was a comparison between the A346 and the 77W. I thought you would be a good source because your airline flies both.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2739
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:33 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 89):
You believe everything that particular pilots says if you want to, but he's very pro-airbus biased and makes no bones about that preference, so just take that into account too.

You forgot his crusade against all things ETOPS to the point of not wanting 4 engine aircraft to get ETOPS safety added to them.
 
RedChili
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:23 am

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:38 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 90):
Thanks for the info, but what I was looking for was a comparison between the A346 and the 77W. I thought you would be a good source because your airline flies both.

Do you consider Zeke to be a prophet?  Wink

I believe the first CX 77W will be delivered in September this year.
Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
 
brons2
Posts: 2480
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:44 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 86):
Went back at my notes, for a ULH flight taking off at MTOW we averaged about 8.8t per hr for a 16 hr flight, covering about 8600 nm.

An A346? No, I don't think so. An A346 could not fly the mission you described.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15912
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:44 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 90):

Thanks for the info, but what I was looking for was a comparison between the A346 and the 77W. I thought you would be a good source because your airline flies both.

Not yet, few months, sept the first few should arrive, just the 772/773 at the moment.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
musapapaya
Posts: 1036
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:02 am

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:53 am

Quoting Brons2 (Reply 93):
An A346? No, I don't think so. An A346 could not fly the mission you described.

I am not Zeke but I know what you wrote here was quite wrong. CX uses a 346 HKG-JFK nonstop year round. Westbound trip clocks around 16 hours 20 mins.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15912
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Is

Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:55 am

Quoting Brons2 (Reply 93):
An A346? No, I don't think so. An A346 could not fly the mission you described.

HKG-JFK every day, schedule time is 15:45, and that is very easy to bust with taxi times at JFK in winter.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
trex8
Posts: 5671
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:58 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 89):
but he's very pro-airbus biased and makes no bones about that preference, so just take that into account too.

your description is spot on and I do take it into account but he still has technical insight into things most of us are clueless about and have no real world experience with.
 
brons2
Posts: 2480
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:59 am

Quoting Musapapaya (Reply 95):

I am not Zeke but I know what you wrote here was quite wrong. CX uses a 346 HKG-JFK nonstop year round. Westbound trip clocks around 16 hours 20 mins.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 96):
HKG-JFK every day, schedule time is 15:45, and that is very easy to bust with taxi times at JFK in winter.

It may be 16 hours but it still ain't no 8600 nautical miles.

8600 statute miles, maybe.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:59 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 86):
The aft end hardly moves around at all, out of all the airbus aircraft that are in service it has the most stable aft end.

I've been watching other posters debate you for quite some time. Most of the time, you have the upper hand.

Given all that, I find your dismissal of a passenger's observation of the ride in the back of a given aircraft to be quite comical. After all, he was just expressing his opinion as to his experience on an A346. He wasn't saying it was an unassailable objective fact - just his opinion. And let's be honest - how much time do you spend in the back row of any aircraft?  Smile
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15912
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:02 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 91):
You forgot his crusade against all things ETOPS to the point of not wanting 4 engine aircraft to get ETOPS safety added to them.

Such as ?

The 340 has all the ETOPS equipment of the 330, it has cargo fire protection for 240-280 minutes, which is more than the standard 787 model.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15912
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Is

Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:17 am

Quoting Brons2 (Reply 98):
It may be 16 hours but it still ain't no 8600 nautical miles.

Have a look at the prevailing winds this time of year, a tack is flown almost direct east from HKG. It would not be uncommon on some flights to be closer track to Hawaii and Midway than Anchorage, depending on the wind. Random tracks are generated and optimised for the prevailing winds subject to the activation of the PACOTS routes.

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/tropic/real-time/eastpac/winds/wg9wvir.GIF

This time of year, a route could be used that gives an average tailwind of between 50-80kt making the extra ground nautical miles travelled into less air nautical miles, average ground speed would be up around 520-550kt. For the return over the pole a simliar technique can be used so that the trip is eastbound all the way instead of the the GC path that is westbound.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
PVG
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 7:39 pm

RE: Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues

Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:57 am

Quoting Coa747 (Reply 34):
Shouldn't CG issues have been considered during the construction by Airbus

Looks like the dual software platform was causing airbus problems pre-A380 as well.

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