Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
astuteman
Posts: 7419
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Sat Nov 12, 2011 8:02 am

Quoting GoBoeing (Reply 94):
In my mind this airplane was a failure. It does nothing extra that anything else in it's class can also do, but it costs more to do the same thing.

By that criteria, many other fine aircraft are failures too.

If there wasn't a time when the A340 DID do something extra in its class, it would never have survived.

But it's abundantly clear that the bulk of A-netters seem unable to position the A340 in the Journey that Airbus made from being a "niche political entity" to become arguably "the world's number one airframer", or if that's too rich, the "equal number one airframer".
Particularly from the point of view of how Airbus leveraged the engineering input to rapidly develop a whole family of widebodys, effectively from the A300.....
As a strategy, it's success is there for all to see.

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 72):
After an absence of almost 20 months, LAN Airlines will operate the A-340-313X a/c into the U.S. The A-340-313X will operate non-stop flights between SCL and LAX starting next week.

Thanks for that beautiful photo.

If I'm honest with myself, I think my all-time favourite flight was a LAN A340 from SCL- AKL
Smooth, quiet, ... beautiful   

Rgds
 
SchorschNG
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:40 am

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:21 am

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 16):
ETOPS 330.. Would you be happy flying on a single engine for 5 1/2 hours over land let alone over an ocean, over the antarctic? I wouldn't if we keep pushing ETOPS up eventually someone is going to get their feet wet.

Actually, that is a strategic option.
If ever a twin gets lost due to engine troubles and ETOPS is questioned, they might be in a unique position.
Of course, we hope that never happens, but think what happens if public opinions shifts (like it did in some parts of the world after the Fukushima accident ... which by they way is not representative for most nuclear power sites in the world, especially those which are well maintained (unlike Fukushima) and looked after by independent authorities (unlike Fukushima)).

However, the ability to produce A340s will remain until the A330 goes out of production. I don't know if they scrap the wing tooling of the -500/600 wing. I hope not.
 
SchorschNG
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:40 am

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:54 am

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 68):
Not necessarily. If a quad loses both engines on one side of the plane, it is in real trouble.

As said: cruising on two engines of either side is no problem.
Double one-sided engine failure after V1 is no requirement.
I think after V2 and clean-up it would work.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 83):
And back to the topic...what's the design life of the final A340's? How long can we reasonably expect to be able to keep riding them?

The -500/600 have 125k hours DSG.
Lufthansa is pushing its first bird (a -300) into the 100k region, and I think it needs quite an inspection for the next 25k.
Probably they rather rip it apart and convert it into beer cans.

So, the A340 will fly until 2020 at least.
Probably a bit longer.
There are still B747-300 in passenger service (and those were made in the 1980ies).
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Sat Nov 12, 2011 2:56 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 100):
But it's abundantly clear that the bulk of A-netters seem unable to position the A340 in the Journey that Airbus made from being a "niche political entity" to become arguably "the world's number one airframer",

So true.   . Too many "judgements" are made with today's knowledge on today's circumstances. But in the 1980's when this project was launched, and launched so successfully, it helped catapulting Airbus from a rather small or nice manufacturer to the number 1 position they are holding for several years now. Though Boeing is not far off, in the late 1980's nobody would have believed that it was possible that Boeing ever might loose that position.

The A340 broke new ground for Airbus where they never had a product before. And being new to the market, the product must be superior to the alternatives out there. Which it clearly was. The best argument for that is how fast Boeing responded with the B777, which in the end (on the upper-side of the family) clearly outperformed the A340's. But as a consequence, on the lower side of the B777 family the A330 outperformed the B777 just as clearly.  .

Well, at least to me the A340-500 is still the undisputed looker. So far there is no other airliner that comes even close to that well-balanced design. Also not the B787 and I expect the A350-XWB to fall short too. But I have to see that plane in real life first before I can make up my mind.  
 
CRJ 900
Posts: 561
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 4:41 am

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:08 pm

When AC had the 345 in the fleet, I had the opportunity to fly on that beautiful bird and absolutely luved it.14 hrs from YYZ-HKG and those big RR engines humming me to sleep...  I really like the 777 but there is something about the 345 for me which surpasses it. I had my fingers crossed when I heard that TAM was withdrawing the two 345s from service, that they would somehow end up back at AC for a bit..... stranger things have happened..... It's kinda funny, Airbus has said they were terminating the program, yet everyone on here is talking like they're all gonna be grounded tomorrow and we'll never get to fly on them again...lol I'm sure we'll be able to enjoy riding on them for many years to come.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:45 pm

Quoting BOACCunard (Reply 99):
Some have called it a failure but I would disagree with that. The "problem" with the A340 inasmuch as it exists is that the category in the market it occupies stopped existing.

The A340's market category in terms of Payload-Range is still there, it's now occupied by more efficient twins (7772ER, 787-9, A358/9/10).

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 101):
However, the ability to produce A340s will remain until the A330 goes out of production. I don't know if they scrap the wing tooling of the -500/600 wing. I hope not.

Why wouldn't the -500/600 wing tooling be scrapped? They're the variants that have had no orders for the past two+ years and will be replaced in the Airbus product line by the A350.
 
SchorschNG
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:40 am

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:45 pm

Quoting CRJ 900 (Reply 104):
The A340 broke new ground for Airbus where they never had a product before.

Also remember that neither A330 nor A340 got their own engine family.
Airbus had to match the aircraft to the available thrust.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:54 pm

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 106):
Also remember that neither A330 nor A340 got their own engine family.

What other airplanes use the RR Trent 500's? They were created specifically for the A345/6.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Sat Nov 12, 2011 4:23 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 100):
If I'm honest with myself, I think my all-time favourite flight was a LAN A340 from SCL- AKL

  

I would love to take that flight twice... once on the 343 that is now flying it and once on the 789 that will replace it. Sadly, I don't think I'll be in a position to do so anytime soon...
 
ZRH
Posts: 4371
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 1999 11:32 pm

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Sat Nov 12, 2011 4:55 pm

It is really sad that soon all beautiful four-holers are gone. Except of course the two VLA A 380 and B 747-8.
 
User avatar
dash500
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 4:14 am

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Sat Nov 12, 2011 7:48 pm

Frim Airbus website:

Completion of production marks new chapter in the A340 success story


10 NOVEMBER 2011 NEWS IN BRIEF
Twenty years after its maiden flight, Airbus has completed production for the A340 jetliner, reflecting changing market dynamics. While new aircraft are no longer to be built, Airbus will continue to fully support the current global fleet of A340s – which are providing reliable ultra long-haul flight services with customers around the world – as long as they are in operation. Four versions of the A340 were produced by Airbus: the A340-200, A340-300, A340-500 and A340-600. Providing extended operating ranges of up to 9,000 nautical miles, this product line allows operators to eliminate unproductive stops, open new routes and match service standards to targeted market needs on very long-haul segments.

http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/new...chapter-in-the-a340-success-story/
 
BOACCunard
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:59 am

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Sat Nov 12, 2011 8:44 pm

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 105):
The A340's market category in terms of Payload-Range is still there, it's now occupied by more efficient twins (7772ER, 787-9, A358/9/10).

Absolutely, what I meant is that there is no market for an aircraft with more than two engines that is not a VLA, thanks to the success of ETOPS. (I really question whether is a sizable market for the B748 passenger version, and that is pretty big!) And that is indeed why the A340 is being replaced by the A350. Boeing does have a temporary advantage in this particular category, but then so did Airbus at the time when the A340 was introduced and the B772ER was several years away. Not to mention that the A330 absolutely destroyed the B772A and B764. (Indeed, the difference in sales between the B772A and A333 and B764 and A332 is way, way bigger than between the B772ER and A343... And no one would call the B777 or B767 programs failures!)

I really do think people are not giving the A340 enough credit. The first viable twin in this category is the B772ER, which entered service 4 years after the A340. The technology for a big, long-haul twin was not ready in 1993, and when the A340 launched it was the most modern long-haul airliner in the world by far, as well as a massive step forward for Airbus. It is the airplane that made Airbus a credible entry in this market segment.

The other thing is that the A330/A340 really has to be considered as different variants of one airplane. Airbus's strategy of a twin for mid-haul and quad for long-haul was quite sensible when the A330/A340 was launched and indeed taken as a whole the A330/A340 program has been a huge success, every bit as successful as the B777 program, with each having an advantage in a different segment of the market. The B777 eventually did gain an advantage in the A340's segment but that was not immediate. From 1993 to 1997 if you wanted a long-haul airliner that wasn't a 747 it was the A340 or nothing. (SA Czech Airlines">OK, you could have had an MD-11, but talk about failures...)

All that said, I will concede that the A345/A346 were basically failures up against the B77L/B77W (though I guess the A345 had its niche for a few years). It may not have been worth it for Airbus to pursue those variants. The A342 was quickly made obsolete by the A343. But the A343, being by far the most popular A340, put in a very respectable showing. And I expect the A340, in all variants, will continue to be operated by carriers like AF and LH for years to come -- with LH being an example of an airline that obviously has succeeded despite choosing not only the A343 over the B772ER but also the A346 over the B77W (IB and SA being others).
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:19 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 90):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 83):
what's the design life of the final A340's? How long can we reasonably expect to be able to keep riding them?

I expect they will be withdrawn for economical reasons before reaching design life. Ten years from now I doubt there are many left.

That's my suspicion too...unfortunate but business is business.

Quoting hOmSaR (Reply 93):

This has probably been mentioned before, but what's the prospect of the A340 seeing life as a freighter conversion at some point down the road?

The -500 might make a nice niche freigher. It's never going to be the workhorse of the freight industry like the 747F but that range, MTOW, and space might make it a good fit for very high value long runs. There's an ATI DC-8 (re-engined) that runs out of KBFI that seems to make a great living to this day.

Quoting GoBoeing (Reply 94):
In my mind this airplane was a failure. It does nothing extra that anything else in it's class can also do,

That's true now, it definitely wasn't true at the time. The A340 was also the unfortunate victim of engines not living up to their promises (even more so than today)...if IAE had managed to deliver the Superfan the A340 would have really shaken up the market.

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 101):
If ever a twin gets lost due to engine troubles and ETOPS is questioned, they might be in a unique position.

I doubt if...if an ETOPS twin goes down it's going to be because somebody didn't follow the ETOPS requirements. It might put a lot of scrutiny on compliance but not on the concept of ETOPS itself.

Tom.
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2072
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:49 pm

An Etihad A340-500 is currently doing a flyby of the Bahrain GP in a F1 livery, tell me that don't look good...
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:57 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 113):
An Etihad A340-500 is currently doing a flyby of the Bahrain GP in a F1 livery, tell me that don't look good...

That's an A340-600. And it's the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steven Austen



[Edited 2011-11-13 04:59:11]
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26566
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Sun Nov 13, 2011 5:41 pm

Quoting corernagh14 (Reply 55):

the two A340 500 's for sale were built in 2008 - MSN886 and MSN894 - They were originally scheduled for the Kingfisher order - of 5 . Three have been sold - Arik Air and private . Those other two remain to be sold.

Very interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingfisher_Airlines#Current says..

Quote:

On 24 April 2006 at Hannover, it became the first Indian airline yet again to place orders for the Airbus A340 aircraft. The order was for five A340-500s.[19] However, these A340-500 orders were cancelled in 2008 due to worldwide economic recession which resulted in skyrocketing of petroleum prices across the world in July 2008.
...
The order for five A340-500s were converted to A330-200s in 2008 after the cancellation of the initial five A340-500 order which was placed in April 2006 at Hannover.

So it seems the order was on the books long enough for Airbus to have ordered all the long-lead items, so the frames got built. I'm kind of surprised that Airbus let them convert the order. Also wonder why Rolls was so compliant.

Note we've currently got a thread running about Kingfisher:

Kingfishers Crisis Worsen (by CPHFF Nov 12 2011 in Civil Aviation)

I suppose once the economy gets rolling again, some VIPs will buy the 500s. Having four engines helps avoid ETOPS issues, but why not go whole hog and get an A380?  
 
Bureaucromancer
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:17 am

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Sun Nov 13, 2011 10:09 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 16):
ETOPS 330.. Would you be happy flying on a single engine for 5 1/2 hours over land let alone over an ocean, over the antarctic? I wouldn't if we keep pushing ETOPS up eventually someone is going to get their feet wet.

Personally I don't like the prospect of being that far from a suitable field on ANY aircraft... Cabin fire six hours from a runway anyone? *shudders*
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Sun Nov 13, 2011 10:50 pm

Quoting Bureaucromancer (Reply 116):
Cabin fire six hours from a runway anyone?

That and medical scares me a lot more than fear of the last engine giving up.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Sun Nov 13, 2011 11:10 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 97):
Ok, I'll admit - I'm no fan of the A340 (except the A345 - now, that is gorgeous), but I have flown on it before and it does provide a relatively quieter cabin than the 777, but to me, that's about its only advantage.

You're overlooking by far the biggest advantage. The 2-4-2 Airbus economy configuration is vastly better than 10-abreast on carriers that subject their passengers to that on 777s. I also much prefer the 2-4-2 Airbus cabin to 9-abreast 777s.
 
infinit
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:12 am

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Sun Nov 13, 2011 11:19 pm

Sad news indeed. Wonder what SQ is going to use for the ultra-long haul SIN-EWR and SIN-LAX flights in the future.
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:11 am

Quoting infinit (Reply 119):
Sad news indeed. Wonder what SQ is going to use for the ultra-long haul SIN-EWR and SIN-LAX flights in the future.

I don't think SQ are in any hurry to get rid of their A345s. They're only 7 years old, if I'm not mistaken, so there's plenty of life left in them yet. There's plenty of time for SQ to consider its replacement.

If they are to replace them, then the 77L would be the only other aircraft capable of flying those routes. I suppose there is also the theoretical "A359R" or the "787-9LR" or the "777-8X", but these don't even exist as paper aircraft yet.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:39 am

They're in no rush because they have them configured in such a way they make a lot of money, and they've got noplace to get rid of them to.


The A340-500 and -600 are FANTASTIC aircraft. The 777-200LR and -300ER just ended up on the cheaper-to-operate side. As a result, the aftermarket won't be too hot.

NS
 
infinit
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:12 am

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:22 am

Yes I believe SQ's A345s are around 6-7 years old but I think they have a policy on decommissioning their ac at 8years. i guess they'll have to make an exception for this or use the 777-300ER for these routes. Heard they're quite a cashcow. A schoolmate of mine flies these routes twice yearly and says its usually over 80% full on his flights
 
AngMoh
Posts: 1111
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:03 am

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Mon Nov 14, 2011 6:20 am

Quoting infinit (Reply 122):
Yes I believe SQ's A345s are around 6-7 years old but I think they have a policy on decommissioning their ac at 8years. i guess they'll have to make an exception for this or use the 777-300ER for these routes. Heard they're quite a cashcow. A schoolmate of mine flies these routes twice yearly and says its usually over 80% full on his flights

The 345s received the new fully flat bed configuration in I believe 2009, so there is no need to replace them in 2 years time. My gues is that they are going to use them for another 10 years (or till they are really no longer viable) - and do an interior refurbishment in a few years if needed. They will never replace them with the 777L, it is too late for that. My guess replacement will be A35x or 777X -next generation aircraft.
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:11 am

Quoting cmf (Reply 90):
I expect they will be withdrawn for economical reasons before reaching design life. Ten years from now I doubt there are many left.

LH and IB still will operate their A346. A343 may reach EOL in peace.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 118):
You're overlooking by far the biggest advantage. The 2-4-2 Airbus economy configuration is vastly better than 10-abreast on carriers that subject their passengers to that on 777s. I also much prefer the 2-4-2 Airbus cabin to 9-abreast 777s.

Nobody on a.net wonders why LH makes a nice profit on their A346 and LX on their A343 while AF makes a loss with their 77W - you name the reason and assume you have experienced both.
 
AustrianZRH
Posts: 853
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:55 pm

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:47 am

Quoting cmf (Reply 117):
Quoting Bureaucromancer (Reply 116):
Cabin fire six hours from a runway anyone?

That and medical scares me a lot more than fear of the last engine giving up.

But that's no different on a quad... Still, the A340 is my favorite modern airliner so I hate to see the production ceased  .
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:48 pm

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 124):
Nobody on a.net wonders why LH makes a nice profit on their A346 and LX on their A343 while AF makes a loss with their 77W - you name the reason and assume you have experienced both.

Because it means nothing.

Both could fly the same aircraft over the same routes and one may make money and one may lose money. There are far to many variables in there operations to say it is the airframe that is making the difference.
 
liftsifter
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:25 am

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:53 pm

While we're talking about the A340, any reason as to why the whole cabin hears a loud screeching noise whenever there is a bit of wing flux on the A346? Didn't notice it on the A342..
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12084
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:57 pm

Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 125):
But that's no different on a quad... Still, the A340 is my favorite modern airliner so I hate to see the production ceased .

That was his point. He was saying that he didn't want to be 6+ hours away from an airport no matter how many engines the aircraft has.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Mon Nov 14, 2011 6:40 pm

Quoting polot (Reply 128):
That was his point. He was saying that he didn't want to be 6+ hours away from an airport no matter how many engines the aircraft has.

Thanks. As you said I was trying to say that engine problems is very far down the list of things I worry about. But to be clear. I have very little fear from being 6+ hours away. For example, I have been days away from medical facilities long periods of my life with little concern   On a plane you're statistically at least likely to have a doctor near you.
 
747400sp
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:36 pm

I hate to see production stop on such beautiful a classic and classy airliner.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 59):
I'd love an A345 as my private jet, gorgeous looks, 4 Rollers under the wing, quiet and smooth




I would to! It would be park next to my 747sp (SUD).


I remember back in the summer of 1989, as a kid on a summer school field trip to the Inglewood Library. I saw an aviation book, that showed future Airbuses coming out. I saw a drawing for an a/c that looked like a four engine A300, and I was like, cool a four engine A300 like a/c . 1994 I saw a LH ad, saying that they will start flying the new A340 to JFK and they still was 747 to LAX ( not a bad thing    ). Around 1996, I saw an A340 for the first time. It was a LH bird but I was disappointed by the take off. Late 90s, I read that Airbus is working on a new larger version of the A340, and later that they chose RR engines.
Later I read that SQ was starting a non stop service between SIN-LAX with A345s, so I thought that SQ would replace their 744 stop over flight with this new service. 2002 VS started service with the A346, and I saw it and thought Airbus really built a true quad big sister to the A300 ( as the DC-8 was to the DC-9). The first A346 to start to LAX, was a CX bird on the HKG-LAX (I believe) route in 2002. I saw that CX A346 come in for a landing one night, and its lights was so beautiful. In 2004 SQ started their SIN-LAX-SIN route. I am a fan of the A340 NG models and I love watch TG A345 on the LAX-BKK route, take off. My favorite A340s at LAX are, MU and VS A346s, TG and SQ A345s and TN and some to come LA A343s.


I am going to miss the A340s flying mainline service.  



PS: I wish TN bought those A340 500. That beautiful livery would have been smart on an A340 NG.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:39 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 130):
I would to! It would be park next to my 747sp (SUD).

I don't think such a thing exists.  

NS
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2811
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:56 pm

I never understood the A340-500 and 600 program. It was started after the 777, but Airbus poured in lots of resources designing two planes with lots of unique parts that were not common with the A330 and had 4 engines rather than 2. Airbus could just as easily put the money into new variants of the A330 using variants of the same engines used on the 777's.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:14 pm

Quoting flyingclrs727 (Reply 132):

I never understood the A340-500 and 600 program.

Remember this was before the 777NG. The A340NG offered a lot of capabilities the 777 and the earlier A330/A340 did not have. Essentially A340-600 became an 747-200 replacement with slightly less passengers, better cargo capacity and much better economics. It is very uncertain Airbus of that time could get GE to develop the engine later developed for 777NG.

What most people also forget is that the 777-300ER Boeing sold at that time was very equal to the A340-600. It was mainly by significantly over deliver Boeing delivered the blow it became, amazing engineering work.
 
747400sp
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:22 pm

Quoting gigneil (Reply 131):
I don't think such a thing exists.






Oh, I know no such thing exists, but if I had that kind of money, why not try it, with upgraded 743 engines and a extra fuel tank on it. For the right money, Boeing would work with me on this project.   
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2811
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:23 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 133):
Remember this was before the 777NG. The A340NG offered a lot of capabilities the 777 and the earlier A330/A340 did not have.

But the 777-300ER and 777-200LR were already in the pipeline, and the 777-200ER was already out. By the mid 90's, it should have been apparent to Airbus that long range large twins were the future even if the A330/A340 program had started in the 80's. For a short window of time, Airbus could deliver a plane to replace the 747-200 with better economics than the 747-400, and also the longest range plane in the world. The low CASM of ultra long range A340-500 ensured that it would only be a niche plane. The 777-300ER ensured that later orders for the A340-600 were just top off orders for airlines that already had sizable A340-600 fleets.
 
tayser
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:49 pm

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:30 pm

Agree with the comment that the 777 sounds like a bucket of bolts and nuts in the cabin compared to a 330/340.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2811
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:38 pm

Quoting tayser (Reply 136):
Agree with the comment that the 777 sounds like a bucket of bolts and nuts in the cabin compared to a 330/340.

Sounds like Airbus was desperate to find places to cut OEW on the A340-600, but they still came short of the 777's efficiency.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12084
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:47 pm

Quoting flyingclrs727 (Reply 135):
But the 777-300ER and 777-200LR were already in the pipeline, and the 777-200ER was already out. By the mid 90's, it should have been apparent to Airbus that long range large twins were the future even if the A330/A340 program had started in the 80's. For a short window of time, Airbus could deliver a plane to replace the 747-200 with better economics than the 747-400, and also the longest range plane in the world. The low CASM of ultra long range A340-500 ensured that it would only be a niche plane. The 777-300ER ensured that later orders for the A340-600 were just top off orders for airlines that already had sizable A340-600 fleets.

Yes, but as cmf alluded to at the end of his post, the 777NG, especially the 77W, turned out to perform much better than initially expected, certainly more than what Boeing was promising its customers (in fact I think it was expected to perform slightly worse than the A340NG, but don't quote me on that). Unfortunately for Airbus, the A340NGs (initially at least) performed slightly worse than what was expected, exacerbating the difference between the 2 aircraft.

Couple that with the unexpected rise in fuel (remember they started both in the late 90s-early 00s, pre-9/11, Iraq invasion) and it is easy to see why Airbus seemed to be caught off guard with the A340NG; at the time of its conception it was a very good idea.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:22 am

Quoting flyingclrs727 (Reply 135):
But the 777-300ER and 777-200LR were already in the pipeline, and the 777-200ER was already out. By the mid 90's, it should have been apparent to Airbus that long range large twins were the future

The A340NG was launched a couple of years before the 777NG. I'm sure Airbus did consider using the A330 but deemed it too uncertain, remember they had been burned on the superfan. And who knows if they could have made an GE90-115B type engine work on it.

If you read Airbus comments at the beginning of the A330/A340 program it should be clear that they did expect twins to sell better. But they also expected quads to be the better option for certain missions.

If you look at data it may be argued that the pre 777NG performed just OK or even poorly when you consider that Boeing owned the long haul market and Airbus was just a small manufacturer trying to break in. The 777-300ER made it a runaway hit but only because of amazing engineering that created a far better plane than expected, kind of an accident.

Also remember that when judging peoples decisions you need to consider how things stood at the time the decision was made. Not with the knowledge of having seen how it played out.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Tue Nov 15, 2011 2:42 am

Quoting cmf (Reply 139):
The 777-300ER made it a runaway hit but only because of amazing engineering that created a far better plane than expected, kind of an accident.

I can assure you no part of the 777-300ER performance capabilities are an accident. They are the result of good engineering.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Termination Of The A 340 Programme

Tue Nov 15, 2011 2:54 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 140):
I can assure you no part of the 777-300ER performance capabilities are an accident. They are the result of good engineering.

I called it amazing engineering. But it is also cleared that it wasn't engineered to defined specification. One may wonder what the result would have been if instead of increasing range and payload they had reduced fuel consumption. Kind of how Dreamliner traded the Sonic Cruiser speed for reduced fuel consumption and got better traction with airlines.

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