Why did the A340-600 turn out to be vastly inferior to the 777-300ER when the 343 was able to do quite well against 772?

Stitch · Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:14 pm

luckyone wrote:
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=402507. Post #11

Polot wrote:
That’s all in reference to BA’s follow up 777 order placed in 1998 where BA switched to RR, not the initial GE powered 777 order. BA did not have GE powered 747s.

Just for clarification's sake, my post was referencing an article in The New York Times dated Aug. 22, 1991 about British Airways placing an order with Boeing for the 777 and with GE for the GE90: https://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/22/busi ... oeing.html

The order, which General Electric valued at $1.4 billion, is the first for the GE90 engine. British Airways also said it was selling British Airways Engine Overhaul Ltd. to General Electric for £272 million, or $447.14 million at current rates.

British Airways ordered 15 of the 777 twin-engine jets and took options to buy 15 more for a total of $3.6 billion. The airline also said it intended to order 24 additional 747-400 jumbo jets, bringing the total value of its order, including service and support, to $6.85 billion.

And yes, I understand that section about the "24 additional 747-400 jumbo jets" was effectively an MoU / LoI and not part of this 15+15 777 deal and I also know that BA did not operate any 747-400s with GE power.

DocLightning · Fri Oct 22, 2021 12:15 am

What I'm interested to know is why some airlines bought the A346. VS presumably did so because of "4 engines 4 long haul." But what about TG and LH?

Kent350787 · Fri Oct 22, 2021 1:09 am

DocLightning wrote:
What I'm interested to know is why some airlines bought the A346. VS presumably did so because of "4 engines 4 long haul." But what about TG and LH?

Wasn't it TG policy to have at least one of everything?

I always assumed the LH purchase was either on the basis of pressing need for capacity and the success of the 343, as well as a sweetener for the A380.

FLALEFTY · Fri Oct 22, 2021 1:23 am

I remember Airbus originally marketing the A346 as a replacement for the then-large number of classic B747's that were retiring out in the late 1990's and early '00's. It was also offered as a slightly-smaller alternative to the B744. Iberia, for one, replaced their entire B747 fleet with A346's.

seahawk · Fri Oct 22, 2021 5:13 am

DocLightning wrote:
What I'm interested to know is why some airlines bought the A346. VS presumably did so because of "4 engines 4 long haul." But what about TG and LH?

They were looking at replacing DC-10/747 Classics. The A343 did okay against the 777-200/777-200ER and the A340NG promised even better economy. Airbus promised 10% lower operating costs per seat than the A343 and 3% less than what Boeing promised for the 777-300X. In reality the A340NG fell short of the performance expectations, while the 777-300ER performed much better than even Boeing expected. But this could not have been known when LH ordered the A340NG.

luckyone · Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:02 pm

DocLightning wrote:
What I'm interested to know is why some airlines bought the A346. VS presumably did so because of "4 engines 4 long haul." But what about TG and LH?

For LH: they had a sizable fleet of A343s already in house at the time, as well as large and growing fleet of Airbus narrow bodies. Plus it can't be discounted the German investment in Airbus.

DocLightning · Fri Oct 22, 2021 7:59 pm

luckyone wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
What I'm interested to know is why some airlines bought the A346. VS presumably did so because of "4 engines 4 long haul." But what about TG and LH?

For LH: they had a sizable fleet of A343s already in house at the time, as well as large and growing fleet of Airbus narrow bodies. Plus it can't be discounted the German investment in Airbus.

All this was true for AF, though. I wonder why they didn't. IB I guess makes some sense, since I suppose they had concerns about performance out of MAD, although they're happily flying A350s now.

sevenheavy · Fri Oct 22, 2021 8:52 pm

DocLightning wrote:
luckyone wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
What I'm interested to know is why some airlines bought the A346. VS presumably did so because of "4 engines 4 long haul." But what about TG and LH?

For LH: they had a sizable fleet of A343s already in house at the time, as well as large and growing fleet of Airbus narrow bodies. Plus it can't be discounted the German investment in Airbus.

All this was true for AF, though. I wonder why they didn't. IB I guess makes some sense, since I suppose they had concerns about performance out of MAD, although they're happily flying A350s now.

List price and lease rates are factors. Some airlines could have been offered very good deals/incentives to take the A346. Fleet commonality with the A343 would have also been part of the equation and likely narrowed the gap considerably

The A346 can also carry an incredible amount of cargo. I believe it has (or had) more pallet/container positions than any other aircraft.

FGITD · Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:55 pm

sevenheavy wrote:

The A346 can also carry an incredible amount of cargo. I believe it has (or had) more pallet/container positions than any other aircraft.

Both hold 44 LD3s or 14 LD7s. But the 77w can fit 14 LD7s and 2 LD3s when maxxed out, so marginally more

SQ22 · Sat Oct 23, 2021 8:28 am

Please remeber to provide a link to your sirce when stating facts, thanks.

Stitch · Sat Oct 23, 2021 2:23 pm

DocLightning wrote:
All this was true for AF, though. I wonder why they didn't.

Hazarding a guess, they had a pretty decent 747-400 fleet (passenger, freighter and combi) so they may not have felt they needed the A340-600 at launch and by the time the 747-400s were ready for retirement or they needed more VLA frames, the A380-800 and 777-300ER had already stamped their authority on the market so that is the direction they went.

DocLightning wrote:
IB I guess makes some sense, since I suppose they had concerns about performance out of MAD, although they're happily flying A350s now.

Well it's not like they really have a choice now, since all commercial widebodies currently in serial production are twins (A330, A350, 777X and 787).

rbavfan · Fri Jan 28, 2022 4:29 am

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
The A340-600 is simply too heavy. It became too heavy with its various upgrades for increased capacity and payload.

The A346 OEW is 33% higher than the A343 while the airplane is 18% longer.

The 777-300ER is only 21% heavier than the 777-200ER while being 16% longer.

A good chunk of the 33% is the weight difference between CFM56-5C & the less optimized Trent 500's.
2 Older GE 90-115's added only 3832 lb. more than the GE-90-94's
4 Trent 5000's alone installed added 8816 lb. more weight just bare engines.
4489 lb. more increase alone vs 777-200ER vs 777-300R weights.
Add in the longer fuselage & heavy wings and it looses quite a bit of ground.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Trent_500
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE90
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_CFM56

Why did the A340-600 turn out to be vastly inferior to the 777-300ER when the 343 was able to do quite well against 772?

Re: Why did the A340-600 turn out to be vastly inferior to the 777-300ER when the 343 was able to do quite well against

Re: Why did the A340-600 turn out to be vastly inferior to the 777-300ER when the 343 was able to do quite well against

Re: Why did the A340-600 turn out to be vastly inferior to the 777-300ER when the 343 was able to do quite well against

Re: Why did the A340-600 turn out to be vastly inferior to the 777-300ER when the 343 was able to do quite well against

Re: Why did the A340-600 turn out to be vastly inferior to the 777-300ER when the 343 was able to do quite well against

Re: Why did the A340-600 turn out to be vastly inferior to the 777-300ER when the 343 was able to do quite well against

Re: Why did the A340-600 turn out to be vastly inferior to the 777-300ER when the 343 was able to do quite well against

Re: Why did the A340-600 turn out to be vastly inferior to the 777-300ER when the 343 was able to do quite well against

Re: Why did the A340-600 turn out to be vastly inferior to the 777-300ER when the 343 was able to do quite well against

Re: Why did the A340-600 turn out to be vastly inferior to the 777-300ER when the 343 was able to do quite well against

Re: Why did the A340-600 turn out to be vastly inferior to the 777-300ER when the 343 was able to do quite well against

Re: Why did the A340-600 turn out to be vastly inferior to the 777-300ER when the 343 was able to do quite well against

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net