Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted?

ebj1248650 · Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:02 pm

In the last few months, I've noticed a tendency of a.netters to discount any likelihood of the second generation A340s being sold in any kind of numbers to the world's airlines. Why is that? Yes, the 777 offers strong competition, but remember Boeing was in competition with Airbus for a wide body order some time ago and Spanish airline Iberia went the A340-600 route. Is the current generation of 777s so superior as to render the second generation A340s no longer competitive?

EI321 · Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:09 pm

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Thread starter):
In the last few months, I've noticed a tendency of a.netters to discount any likelihood of the second generation A340s being sold in any kind of numbers to the world's airlines. Why is that?

The 777-300ER and 777-200LR offer up to 20% lower fuel burn per seat over the A340-600 and A340-500. Add to that the continually weak dollar and you have a situation where it is difficult to justify ordering the A340s.

CHRISBA777ER · Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:13 pm

LOL oh boy this is going to run and run.

Basically - the 777 offers a better fuel burn than the A340 in most classes. They generally have more range, slightly better cargo uplift, slightly better MX costs, slightly better fuel burn, are slightly faster and slightly more pax capacity.

EG:

The 777-200ER vs A340-313E

The 777-200LR - vs A340-500

The 777-300ER vs A340-600.

The advantages are not massive on their own but there is little doubting that the 777 is a more efficient and capable plane. The A340 has some key advantages as well, such as not being ETOPS restricted, commonality with existing fleets of other Airbus planes, and being an awful lot quieter in the cabin and being a great deal cheaper to acquire.

They arent anywhere near as bad as people make them out to be and almost all airlines love them for the advantages I mentioned above.

Problem is, the A350 and 787 are significantly more capable than the 777 or A340 in all classes and so obviously airlines will go for them.

Thorben · Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:16 pm

Quoting EI321 (Reply 1):
The 777-300ER and 777-200LR offer up to 20% lower fuel burn per seat over the A340-600 and A340-500.

In Boeing's marketing papers, but not in the real world.

seabosdca · Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:20 pm

Yes, the 777 is that superior. The only recent A340 orders have been from existing A340 operators (such as IB, LH, and AY) looking to top off their fleets. A direct comparison of the 777-300ER and A340-600 (the more mainstream variants) reveals that:

- the 777-300ER is considerably lighter
- yet, the 777-300ER can carry a heavier payload
- the 777-300ER has better fuel burn on nearly all missions
- the 777-300ER has better full pax range and only slightly worse range with a full payload (the difference is because the 777-300ER can carry a heavier payload)
- the 777-300ER has marginally more LD3 positions
- the 777-300ER has lower maintenance costs, largely because it has only two engines

In development, it looked like the 777-300ER would be a more economical but slightly less capable competitor to the A340-600. The 777-300ER's fuel efficiency ended up being better than expected. As a result, the aircraft ended up being simply superior to the A340-600 on nearly all missions. The difference is not so great that airlines with A340-600 fleets can't make money, but it's great enough to produce the sales results we've seen.

The difference between the 777-200LR and A340-500 is even more dramatic. Airlines have struggled to make money with A340-500 fleets. The A340-500 is simply too heavy for an aircraft of its size and capability. On stage lengths an A340-300 can fly, the A340-500's weight makes it less efficient than the A340-300. On longer stage lengths, the A340-500 can't carry meaningful cargo. By contrast, the 777-200LR can carry a full payload -- which is much greater than any payload the A340-500 can carry -- up to 7500 nm. Even a 777-200ER has better capability than an A340-500 on many missions.

The A340-500 is a very pretty aircraft, but it is the worst performer among current-generation widebodies by a wide margin.

ebj1248650 · Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:21 pm

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 2):
The A340 has some key advantages as well, such as not being ETOPS restricted, commonality with existing fleets of other Airbus planes, and being an awful lot quieter in the cabin and being a great deal cheaper to acquire.

I presume the lower initial purchase cost doesn't do enough to cancel out the 777's better overall operating costs then. Makes sense. Your comment about the A340 being quieter in the cabin prompts me to ask which airplane passengers prefer. I suspect it's the A340, though I'm not sure if you're talking about first generation or second generation airplanes (-300 vs -600).

EI321 · Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:24 pm

Quoting Thorben (Reply 3):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 1):
The 777-300ER and 777-200LR offer up to 20% lower fuel burn per seat over the A340-600 and A340-500.

In Boeing's marketing papers, but not in the real world.

Of course its not 20% in all profiles, but It seems to be 10%-20% lower.

Click on this dot:

Big version: Width: 650 Height: 1488 File size: 37kb

ebj1248650 · Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:25 pm

Quoting Thorben (Reply 3):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 1):
The 777-300ER and 777-200LR offer up to 20% lower fuel burn per seat over the A340-600 and A340-500.

In Boeing's marketing papers, but not in the real world.

Can you provide more accurate (real world) figures, please?

EI321 · Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:29 pm

Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 4):
Yes, the 777 is that superior. The only recent A340 orders have been from existing A340 operators (such as IB, LH, and AY) looking to top off their fleets.

There have been a few others.

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 7):
Quoting Thorben (Reply 3):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 1):
The 777-300ER and 777-200LR offer up to 20% lower fuel burn per seat over the A340-600 and A340-500.

In Boeing's marketing papers, but not in the real world.

Can you provide more accurate (real world) figures, please?

There difference between the 777-300ER and A340-600 is less than that of the 777-200LR and A340-500.

[Edited 2007-11-23 07:30:24]

Thorben · Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:32 pm

Quoting EI321 (Reply 6):

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 7):

This is about the x-thousandth thread about the oh-so-bad-A340NG. I am having enough of this. Believe what Boeing says in its marketing papers, about as true as their original 787 schedule, which they would fulfill of course, etc, etc.

If the A346 is so bad, why did EY order it instead of more 77W, which they also have in their fleet?

If the A345 is so bad, why does JJ use it to FRA? Why EK to ZRH and HAM?

seabosdca · Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:55 pm

Quoting Thorben (Reply 9):
If the A345 is so bad, why does JJ use it to FRA? Why EK to ZRH and HAM?

JJ uses A340-500s because they were desperate for more widebody lift before their 777-300ERs arrive. (Notice that they also acquired 3 MD-11s for the same reason.) They will probably dispose of the A340-500s and MD-11s once all the 777-300ERs are delivered. The mission would be better served by an A340-300 or a 777-200ER, but the A340-500s were available and inexpensive to acquire.

It's a bit of a mystery why EK uses their A340-500s as they do. They have acquired the planes and have to use them somewhere; the resale value is terrible. (This is the same reason SQ never replaced their A340-500s with 777-200LRs.) My best uninformed guess is that the economics of the A340-500 on ULH operations are so poor, because they can't carry cargo and they can't carry enough pax, that EK decided it was financially more productive to use the planes on missions where they could carry a full load. Even though an A330-300 would serve those missions far more efficiently, I expect the difference is not great enough to make up the difference between the resale value of the A340-500 and the purchase price of a new A330-300.

Cruiser · Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:01 pm

Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 10):
JJ uses A340-500s because they were desperate for more widebody lift before their 777-300ERs arrive.

AC was rumored to have gotten the two A345's for between $60 and $80 million a piece. Why would AC replace them with the 772LR which probably cost about double that if they did not believe they could make more money as a result. One thing is for certain though...JJ got a killer deal on those planes!

James

Transpac787 · Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:12 pm

Quoting Thorben (Reply 9):
If the A346 is so bad, why did EY order it instead of more 77W, which they also have in their fleet?

Then maybe you'd care to explain why orders for 773ER's are much more numerous than those for A346's. Why did CX order 773ER's when they already have A346?? Why did AC get 772LR's when they already had A345's??

Quoting Thorben (Reply 3):
In Boeing's marketing papers, but not in the real world.

You are absolutly right, that is why new-build A345's are selling much faster than 772LR's Yeah sure

kaitak744 · Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:22 pm

Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 10):
It's a bit of a mystery why EK uses their A340-500s as they do. They have acquired the planes and have to use them somewhere; the resale value is terrible. (This is the same reason SQ never replaced their A340-500s with 777-200LRs.) My best uninformed guess is that the economics of the A340-500 on ULH operations are so poor, because they can't carry cargo and they can't carry enough pax, that EK decided it was financially more productive to use the planes on missions where they could carry a full load. Even though an A330-300 would serve those missions far more efficiently, I expect the difference is not great enough to make up the difference between the resale value of the A340-500 and the purchase price of a new A330-300.

By the looks of their network, Emirates does under-use the range of all their aircraft. However, the aircraft are actually stretched to their farthest.
The A340-500s are used to Australia, which no other aircraft in their fleet can reach. (except 77L)
Also, in the summer, DXB has a very hot and dry climate, making takeoff a little difficult. This limits the range of all the aircraft.

pnwtraveler · Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:27 pm

The aircraft A340's and A319/320 that AC is subleasing are returning a very good profit margin to AC. So regardless of the "deal" that airlines maybe getting is is proving lucrative for AC.

The A340's were good aircraft but consistantly I heard from a Pilot friend and a flight attendant that they were under powered. He was based out of Singapore and was a test pilot for the airline and others. He now has experience on all the Airbus products (not A380) and now 777 and 747. Higher rated engines would have been a boon to the aircraft. AC liked the 345. The larger and more powerful engines made a big difference. However, as has been said above it simply couldn't match the payload of the 777. Airbus' answer is to just stream everything to the A350.

Stitch · Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:28 pm

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Thread starter):
In the last few months, I've noticed a tendency of a.netters to discount any likelihood of the second generation A340s being sold in any kind of numbers to the world's airlines. Why is that?

For new purchases, the 77L and 77W are better choices pretty much across the board, as noted. Also, availability is likely better with them since Airbus builds mostly A330s on their line and with the strong sales of that family the past two years, production slots for new-build A345s and A346s are a bit far away. And, of course, the A350-900 and A350-1000 will truly obsolete both aircraft since ETOPS really isn't much of an issue anymore since the quads will likely need to meet similar LROPS requirements and the FAA has already lifted ETOPS restrictions so a twin can fly any route it wants if it meets the necessary requirements.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 9):
Why (does) EK (fly the A345) to ZRH and HAM?

Because those cities likely have really good premium cabin sales (likely driven by financial deals being undertaken in the UAE) and the A345 can lift those fancy First Class suites and Business Class seats that the A343 or 77E couldn't. Notice how EK is not using the A345 to launch services to the North American West Coast, but instead is waiting for their 777-200LR fleet which will have (I am told) an identical cabin to the A345s. I am guessing that EK can't get the payload they desire using an A345 and need to wait for the 77L.

dutchjet · Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:32 pm

This thread is headed for trouble..........let me try a diplomatic answer:

Most airlines prefer the 772LR/773ER over the A346/A346 in this market segment.....the 777 is the better selling airplane thus Airbus tries to compete on price sometimes resulting in deep discounts for the A345/A346 models.

There have been numerous threads concerning the the A345/A346 and 772LR/773ER, as well as threads comparing the two types based upon a variety of factors, and there is really no need to go through all of that again. And, please remember that the A345/A346 models are very good airplanes, its simply that the Boeing products in this segment are outstanding airplanes and are therefore selling more strongly in the marketplace. Airbus can continue to market and offer the A345/A346 as long as the very popular A330 series is built.....thus, we could see additional follow up orders or maybe some new operators of the type.

Please lets not do the A vs B thing here (and, remmeber, I am a Boeing guy.)

Cruiser · Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:35 pm

Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 14):
The aircraft A340's and A319/320 that AC is subleasing are returning a very good profit margin to AC. So regardless of the "deal" that airlines maybe getting is is proving lucrative for AC.

I believe the A345's were sold outright to JJ.

SPREE34 · Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:07 pm

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 2):
They arent anywhere near as bad as people make them out to be and almost all airlines love them for the advantages I mentioned above.

The A340 is bad? Oh my! I didn't know that. The CAA, JAA, and FAA should have told the flying public about this bad plane. Why hasn't the worlds news media picked up on this?

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 5):
Your comment about the A340 being quieter in the cabin prompts me to ask which airplane passengers prefer.

I think it's the quietest cabin I've been in. (340-300) Most of my crossings have been in 777s, 747s, 340s and DC-8s way back. I generally don't care so much what the equipment is going to be on a given flight, unless it's a type I know that the particular carrier has jammed in seating.
The best I've ever slept while airborne has been in the 340. If my trip happens to be on a 340, I consider it an added treat.

EI321 · Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:24 pm

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 12):
Why did AC get 772LR's when they already had A345's??

Aircanada did not order a whole bunch of 777s just to replace two A345s. The 777 order was part of the 787 order which aswell as replacing the A340s will also replace their 30 or 40 767s. And remember that the 787 was competing against the A350MKI for that particular order. The choice was a no brainer.

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 12):
Why did CX order 773ER's when they already have A346??

They already have the 777 too. CX dont own any of their A340-600s, they are leased.

Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 10):
Quoting Thorben (Reply 9):
If the A345 is so bad, why does JJ use it to FRA? Why EK to ZRH and HAM?

JJ uses A340-500s because they were desperate for more widebody lift before their 777-300ERs arrive. (Notice that they also acquired 3 MD-11s for the same reason.) They will probably dispose of the A340-500s and MD-11s once all the 777-300ERs are delivered. The mission would be better served by an A340-300 or a 777-200ER, but the A340-500s were available and inexpensive to acquire.

If they were so desparate to get aircraft, and the A340-300 or 777-200ER would suit them better, why did they not just buy a pair of the A343s or 777ERs that are readily available?

CHRISBA777ER · Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:38 pm

Many a-netters hate the A340 - mainly to do with the sedate climb performance of the A343. Sad really.

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 5):
I'm not sure if you're talking about first generation or second generation airplanes (-300 vs -600).

The 300, 500 and 600 are *much* quieter than any 777.

I've been on 772A (GE, Trent, and PW), 773A (Trent), 77E (Trent, GE, and PW), 77W, but not the 77L (yet) and the noise difference is compelling.

It also depends where you are sat - if you are behind the engine towards the back on the 77W it is noisier than the classic 747 I think.

I also think the A340 is a bit smoother in bumps. Just my personal opinion, though.

Also people slag off the A340 for having crap performance and stuff, and I agree the A343 is rather sedate, but any of you nay-sayers ever taken the A345 or A346 lightly loaded on a shorter flight? I've been on VS A346 LHR-BOS, EY A345 to LHR-AUH, EK LGW-DXB, and QR LHR-DOH and they have absolutely rocketed off! Exhilarating stuff!

One thing is for sure, when the world is flying nothing but boring twins I sure will miss the 340.

[Edited 2007-11-23 09:40:55]

tdscanuck · Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:51 pm

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 5):
Your comment about the A340 being quieter in the cabin prompts me to ask which airplane passengers prefer.

I prefer the A340, from the passenger point of view. Most people I've asked either prefer the A340 (quieter) or don't care. Airplane nuts like the 777 because of the huge engines, but that's a niche thing.

The issue is that, on all of the metrics where cost to the airline counts, the 777 can match or edge out the A340.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 9):
If the A346 is so bad, why did EY order it instead of more 77W, which they also have in their fleet?

If the A345 is so bad, why does JJ use it to FRA? Why EK to ZRH and HAM?

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 16):
And, please remember that the A345/A346 models are very good airplanes, its simply that the Boeing products in this segment are outstanding airplanes and are therefore selling more strongly in the marketplace.

Well said, Dutchjet! Thorben, nobody should be saying the A340 is bad. The OP started with asking why it's not selling as well and, effectively, why it's discounted relatively heavily. These are both true statements that can't be argued. It's not that the A340's are bad, they're just not as good as the 777's for the vast majority of missions on which they compete. In a few cases, the A340 is better and you see them being bought for those routes. In many cases, it's good enough and that's why we still see them in use and see some purchases (commonality has value). In some cases, the 777 is significantly better and then it gets the share of the market. If you're starting from a clean-sheet with no prior history with either airplane, it's tough to economically justify an A340 purchase over a 777 unless there's a lot of discounting involved to cover the value shortfall.

Tom.

mirrodie · Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:01 pm

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 16):
Most airlines prefer the 772LR/773ER over the A346/A346 in this market segment.....the 777 is the better selling airplane thus Airbus tries to compete on price sometimes resulting in deep discounts for the A345/A346 models

And that is pretty much the correct answer for to the opening question.

Personally, I enjoy riding on the 777 as much as the 340. They all beat an RJ (minus the Bae146) any day as far as cabin comfort, in my opinion.

Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted?

Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted?

RE: Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted?

RE: Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted?

RE: Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted?

RE: Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted?

RE: Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted?

RE: Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted?

RE: Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted?

RE: Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted?

RE: Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted?

RE: Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted?

RE: Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted?

RE: Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted?

RE: Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted?

RE: Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted?

RE: Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted?

RE: Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted?

RE: Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted?

RE: Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted?

RE: Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted?

RE: Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted?

RE: Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted?

RE: Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net