Love Affair With The A340

Guest · Sat Oct 07, 2000 7:23 am

Is anyone out there that reaally likes the a340? i think its so great and technologically advanced and has been well recieved by airlines all around the world.the aircraft graces the sky and its great.

Guest · Sat Oct 07, 2000 7:38 am

I preffer the A330, especially the -200 series

Mr.BA · Sat Oct 07, 2000 7:42 am

Agree with mNicolaki,

A330 is the best aircraft in the Airbus industries's long haul aircraft.

Alvin

Guest · Sat Oct 07, 2000 7:45 am

why do u prefer the a330?

RayChuang · Sat Oct 07, 2000 7:46 am

While the A340 was a good airplane for its time, there has been some gripes from airlines regarding this plane:

1. It has a smaller section for "premium" (First and Business Class) seating than airliners really wanted.

2. The plane is a bit underpowered for its size.

3. The plane flies a bit slower than the MD-11 and 747-400 on the same long routes.

4. The plane has somewhat sluggish climb performance.

That does explain why sales have been slow lately.

Guest · Sat Oct 07, 2000 8:00 am

I like the A340-500/600 with better powerful (50,000-60,000lb thrust), RR Trent 500 series engines than the A340-200/300. The 200/300 models are underpowered with those small CFM56s that are meant for the A320 family and 737 aircraft. A 40,000lb or more thrust version of the P&W 2000 & RR RB211 engines used on the Boeing 757-200/300 would have been a better choice.

Guest · Sat Oct 07, 2000 8:03 am

Hei peq !
Me too, i love Airbus A340 !

Guest · Sat Oct 07, 2000 8:12 am

why do we love it so?

Guest · Sat Oct 07, 2000 8:17 am

First of all I preffer the A330 for its look, IMHO it looks way more impressive than an A340! Plus as RayChuang the A340 is a bit underpowered compared to the A330.

Click for large version

Photo © Don Boyd

Nicolas Bourbillon
Montreal, Canada (Where you got to see tons of A330/A340!)

Guest · Sat Oct 07, 2000 9:39 am

I am a big fan of the A340, mainly as my mate flies it, so I here many great things about!
Iain

Guest · Sat Oct 07, 2000 9:42 am

its just great, isnt it! but y?

Boeing727 · Sat Oct 07, 2000 9:44 am

...the A340 climbs by the curvature of the earth; I very much dislike this airplane...

Boeing727

Guest · Sat Oct 07, 2000 10:04 am

I think it is very underpowered and on take-off it's like a fully loaded 727 with only 2 engines operating.

I prefer the 777 or 747 any day over A340. I think the A340 is louder than 777 and 747. It doesn't have good peformance either.

Guest · Sat Oct 07, 2000 10:05 am

To any Airbus fans, my last post was just my opinion, so don't start a war.

slawko · Sat Oct 07, 2000 10:09 am

I agree with the two above, out of all the buses I hate the A340 (superplastic) the most. The 330 on the other hand is very nice, I prefer the look and the performance of that airplane, and it is probably my favourite of the buses.

I will also take this time to cc the statement that Boeing747-400 made: "To any Airbus fans, my last post was just my opinion, so don't start a war."

Adam84 · Sat Oct 07, 2000 10:17 am

I think the A340 looks great (I have never flown one and have only seen a Lufthansa A340), the a%% end made it look funny to me. Anyhow right now I have a "love affair" with the DC-10 and MD-11 but once those are gone from pass. services my new love will be the A330 cause it looks sexy.

Guest · Sat Oct 07, 2000 10:48 am

Hei peq ! we love it so, because our master the A340 is the quieter, the most beautiful, the most confortable, the most economic

MAC_Veteran · Sat Oct 07, 2000 11:38 am

Peq wrote:
-------------------------------
why do we love it so?

Because..

-It's elegant and classic looking. Reminds me of a elegant and classic airplane called the DC-8. The airfoil, overall looks, -everything- is a beautiful visual delight to indulge your eyes upon.

-It's quiet, just compare the cabin noise of an A340 to anything else in the widebody "litter". It's simply the quietest airplane I've ever flown on. If you like to sleep on long distance flights, this is the most sleep-friendly airplane you can ask for.

-It's different. It's not as wide as an MD-11 or DC-10, yet it's wider than the 767. It's in a league all it's own.

-It's -not- a flying, 2 engined Freightliner warehouse with acres of wasted space for just one passenger-width more.

It's much more personal and comfortable in my view.

MAC

cba · Sat Oct 07, 2000 11:56 am

I have flown on an A340, and it is a nice aircraft. It looks nice from the exterior, and the 2-4-2 interior is very nice. But, The A340 has no climb power. The A330 looks a lot better when climbing. But, I do like the 777 better than the 330/340. I like the 330/340, but I like the 777 better. It's engines are so huge and powerful. Imagine 4 of those 90,000 lb GE90's on a modified 747-400!

tim · Sat Oct 07, 2000 12:01 pm

I have never flown an A340 :-(
But I have flown on a Cathay A330-300 from Perth - Hongkong. This A330 was extremly comfortable! And what a great looking plane!!

Is it fair to say that the new A340-500/600 will have the required power plant? eg. Will they now be powerfull enough to shut people up about their performance?

Cheers
Tim

Pacific · Sat Oct 07, 2000 12:31 pm

I was on an A340 once in my life, before I paid attention to takeoff performance. It was a brand new Phillipine Airlines plane and I got upgraded to business class, the best I've been in my life. What made it even more special that it was my last Rnw13 approach into Kai tak before it closed. Up at the front, the plane was the quietest plane I've ever flown and the A340 remains my favourite aircraft followed by the MD11.

Pacific

Guest · Sat Oct 07, 2000 12:35 pm

I do like the A340 very much indeed, but I really can't say that it's better or worse looking than an A330 because it's the same plane. Just one is a twin the other a Quad. Having flown in the A340 I never noticed the slow climb rate or the longer flight time it seemed perfectly normal. From a noise point of view I found it very quiet inside, compared with some other aircraft.
Probably the big plus for the airlines is the etops regulations covering twin operations over water requiring the aircraft to track via certain way points to comply with one engine diversion times. The A340 can fly direct, as ETOPS don't apply to a Quad. Of course not all airlines need to cross vast bodies of water and when faced with servicing costs of two or four engines for the same capacity, the twin will always win.
As to the shortage of premium class seating, well that's up to the airline. In reality they could configure the whole aircraft from nose to tail with first class seating.
The partition can be placed anywhere the airline specifies.
The engines were chosen to deliver low seat/mile costs and it does just that. Larger more powerful engines would give a better climb rate and a faster cruising speed but would use more fuel , thus reducing range.
I think that when the aircraft was in development and airlines were consulted as to their need, the lower seat/mile costs and range were considered more important at a time when fuel costs were a bit sensitive.

Guest · Sat Oct 07, 2000 12:47 pm

I like the Airbus A340! Especally the Airbus A340-300. It's great for long distance.

Click for large version

Photo © Alan Tsui

b767-400er · Sat Oct 07, 2000 12:50 pm

Personally, I like the looks of the 340. But I don't like the slow climbing performance, or the noise at the middle of the wing part. + I like the 777 better.

cba:

Imagine if you put 4 115,000lbs GE90-115b(777-300er/lr) on the 747-400!!

Tony,
B767-400er

Airbus_A340 · Sat Oct 07, 2000 12:54 pm

My favourite aircraft is the A340-300
Iv travelled on it lots of times with Virgin Atlantic.
The plane looks so elegant. It has the quietest cabin in the sky today than any other airliner so i dont know why people say its a bit noisy.
To me its beautiful, its high tech and its 2-4-2 seating is better to what i think of the 747 and he 777.
Trev AKA Airbus_A340

Superfly · Sat Oct 07, 2000 1:03 pm

I haven't flown an A340 yet but I cant wait to do so.
I cant really argue in terms of its performance by my gosh its such a beautiful jet to look at!

Just look at it!
I hate to sound like a broken record, because I've said this in previous fourums but I think it is beautiful aircraft.
Especially in Olympic Airways livery.

Click for large version

Photo © Darcy Stevens

Isn't she lovely!

AerLingus · Sat Oct 07, 2000 1:24 pm

I like the A340, but I love the A330.
After the Tri Stars are phased out, the 330 will become the most beautiful.

-AerLingus

P.S. In my opinion, the 330 looks best in EI livery.

Guest · Sat Oct 07, 2000 1:47 pm

All of you think the A340 has a bad climb rate, actually it is not as bad as you think as the A340 wings is one of the best around, and personally engines fail all the time, very rarely does the wing!
Iain

MAC_Veteran · Sat Oct 07, 2000 2:13 pm

Iainhol wrote:
-------------------------------
All of you think the A340 has a bad climb rate, actually it is not as bad as you think as the A340 wings is one of the best around...

------------------

To add and settle one very old argument over speed..anyone know what the average long distance cruise speed on the 767 is?

In the "Mach upper 70's", comparable to the C-141B at Mach .76

That's quite slow compared to the A340's Mach .82

MAC

Louis · Sat Oct 07, 2000 3:30 pm

I flew an A340 for the first time this summer. I found the seating plan to be a bit cramped and the climb slow compared to other planes I've been on -- didn't even seem like we were tilted up. It's my least favorite of all Airbus planes. I love the A32X family though.

Guest · Sat Oct 07, 2000 3:52 pm

She's the most elegant bird up there!!!

Click for large version

Photo © AirNikon

Click for large version

Photo © AirNikon

Guest · Sat Oct 07, 2000 4:08 pm

Shitty climb performance my Arse!!!!

Click for large version

Photo © Allan Rossmore

She's just so fotogenic....

Click for large version

Photo © Vasco Garcia

Click for large version

Photo © Thomas Noack

Click for large version

Photo © Mark Garfinkel

airmale · Sat Oct 07, 2000 6:43 pm

i also prefer the A330, the 200 in particular, its definitely better looking

airsicknessbag · Sat Oct 07, 2000 8:13 pm

I love her because I made my first Intercont in D-AIGA.
Daniel

Joni · Sat Oct 07, 2000 8:53 pm

I wonder why so many people talk of climb performance since 99.99% of passengers

a) don't notice differences in climb performance
b) don't care.

I can't think of one reason why it should be preferable to be higher sooner in the takeoff phase of the flight. The only issue I've ever heard someone having with this is SIA, which is an airline, not passenger and it had to do with getting stuck at a lower altitude in India's airspace. So, really.

Now in a fighter jet I understand climb to be more important.

RayChuang · Sat Oct 07, 2000 9:31 pm

Speaking of the A343, how come we don't see that many A343's flying to and from the USA? It seems the only airlines that regularly fly the A343 to the USA are VS and SQ.

Even LH and AF--who used to fly the A343 to the USA quite a lot--are flying either the 744 or (in AF's case) 772ER to the USA more often.

Guest · Sat Oct 07, 2000 9:54 pm

The A340 is an extreme long haul airplane and LH and I imagine AF use it for their South American and Pacific routes, while they deploy high capacity 747's to North America... LH does however fly to the U.S. with their A340's. Detroit, Boston, Dallas and Houston are all regular destinations for LH and the 340.

AA777 · Sat Oct 07, 2000 9:56 pm

I dont really like the 340's looks much, but the 330 is much better looking than the 340. The 340 looks funny to me with those little engines... They are WAY too small for the plane. Plus I think that It looks funny with 4 engines! I think that planes like the 747's should have 4 b/c they look more balanced. It doesnt seem like the A340 would need 4 engines...SO --> you get the A330.
With the upperdeck of the 747's you feel like 4 engines is a good number cuz its so big. But a plane that looks Smaller than the 777 with 4 tiny engines is strange to me. I dont know why, ANYHOW. I would definitley go for the 330, I really like that planes looks alot (especially in Swissair colors!!)
-AA777

Click for large version

Guest · Sat Oct 07, 2000 10:07 pm

Yes, yes...I'll admit it I love'em both... But the 340 to me is the sleekest, sexiest airplane out there...(I need help) Another reason why I like her more than the A330 is that (in my opinion) no matter how proven the turbines are, no matter the ETOPS, 4 engines are, and will always be safer than 2...

Guest · Sat Oct 07, 2000 11:21 pm

It is too bad IAE did not develop the Superfan V2500 for the A340-200/300 because this powerplant would have improved it's takeoff performance tremendously over the CFM56. And another reason would have been that a US airline (Northwest), would have had these aircraft in their inventory.

BritishMidland · Sat Oct 07, 2000 11:29 pm

the A340 is the most beautiful airplane in the world. I go to JFK for spotting and I walk around the terminals... seeing that large Sabena A340 nose staring into the window is something special. Then watching it take off is something else. Amazing.
And this past March i was on a VS A340 and the flight was great except for my PTV controller wouldn't work for F-Zero racing. Damn it.

p.s.
does anyone know what the list price of an A340-500 is?
Thanks

corsairf/a · Sun Oct 08, 2000 12:36 am

I too, like some of you, love the A330, paricularly the 200 series that we fly at Corsair.

It is so silent, confortable, enjoyable to work on, efficient.

corsairf/a

Click for large version

Megatop747-412 · Sun Oct 08, 2000 1:18 am

Well, I've never flown on an A340 before, nor a B777, hence can't comment on it's takeoff perfgormance. However, I do think it looks elegent (as it the 777 too actually), but on takeoff it do look gracious...

And to RayChuang : Gyro was right to point out in a way that the A340s were designed to long-haul flights and AF used them of their South American and Pacific Routes... Well, may I also add/clarify than generally the A340 is a smaller aircraft than both the B777 and B747 - with equally long range capability, and, before the arrival on the B777 (specially the 777-200ERs), are used as long haul supplements to "thinner" routes with less traffic than a B747. The B777-200ER can also do long haul, but they tend to carry more pax and perhaps for some higher density routes airlines uses it over the A340. Just like the case for AF flying to SIN, they used to fly A340s from CDG-SIN but abt 2 years ago switched to B777s cos it can carry more people I guess.

Louis · Sun Oct 08, 2000 1:48 am

Nope. A340's do come to North America from Europe. VS flies one to JFK and one to LAX, LH has A340 flights to EWR, Houston, ORD, Dallas, SFO, BOS, DTW and the ATL. And AF flies one to Toronto. Air Canada also uses them exclusively on their European routes from Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver.

jaysit · Sun Oct 08, 2000 2:28 am

I agree with some of you on here that it is the sleekest plane in the sky today. I flew the A340 on Air Canada to Tokyo and back, and it really is the quietest aircraft I've been on. I was seated right near the wing and carried on a conversation without straining.

Upon take off from Narita with a load factor of about 70%, our climb rate appeared to be relatively slower than what I have observed for 747s or 777s flying similar routes. We also took up every last inch of runaway before we were airborne. Perhaps, I was looking for this occurrence having heard about thrust problems with the A340. I'm not sure why it took us nearly 50 minutes to reach cruising altitude after takeoff from Tokyo, but it could be due to traffic patterns over NE Asia in the late evening.

TP1685 · Sun Oct 08, 2000 4:45 am

I love the A340-300...specially the ones from my favourite airline...TAP-Air Portugal!!!!

gerardo · Sun Oct 08, 2000 5:18 am

Just to add me on the list of A340 admirors: I LOVE the A340, specially the A340-300. It's so sad, that we have only the CX A340-300 as regular guest.

If there is anything, which I will like more than the A340-300, then it will be the A340-600. I'm desperately looking forward to see the first Swissair A340-600 in ZRH

.

But, so far, I have never been on an A330 or A340, but on every Boeing type.

Regards
Gerardo
http://fly.to/zrh
http://www.egroups.com/group/airbus

747-451 · Sun Oct 08, 2000 8:04 am

I'll take the 747-400 and 777 over the A340 and 330 any time. the 747-400 is a "proven" product, and the 777 is clearly superior technologically.

BA · Sun Oct 08, 2000 11:04 am

The A340 is the perfect aircraft for high altitude destinations like Denver and Mexico City. It has a very high lift wing design, even though it has a slow climb rate. Also it is a somewhat slow plane due to the wing design. Its also under-powered as many people have been saying. I've never been on the A340, but I'm looking forward on flying on one when Lufthansa begins service to Denver in March 25, 2001. I'm looking forward to the A340-500/-600 with those nice new RR engines. They should solve some of the climb rate and take off problems. Also Airbus is considering changing the engines on the A340-200/-300 in the near future. We'll see what happens.

Kind regards,
BA

RayChuang · Sun Oct 08, 2000 2:06 pm

What Airbus is talking about is a new 35,000 lb. thrust variant of the CFM56 that CFM International is now developing, aimed at the A340-300 model.

Hopefully, with the new engines, the A343 will have better takeoff and climb performance; I've seen A343's at SFO use more runway than a full-loaded 744 on the takeoff run!

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net