seabosdca wrote:

Blotto wrote:

Would Airbus make more competitive a340 with four CFM Leap 1A same as the on A321neo.
What do you think?

Would save a lot of fuel, but still wouldn't be competitive with the A350 overall.

The most powerful LEAP currently available for the A321Neo is still a little short on the thrust needed for the A340.

Blotto wrote:

GalebG4 wrote:

Would Airbus make more competitive a340 with two ge90’s same as the on 777-300er.
What do you think?

Since this has been answered, I want to change the question a bit:

Would Airbus make more competitive a340 with four CFM Leap 1A same as the on A321neo.
What do you think?

My opinion is that Airbus made huge mistake and didn’t put one GE90 on a340-600 wing. As a340 sales have showed us, four engine airliner doesn’t make sense with today etops so a340 is going to history. Also my opinion is that airbus made right move with a350 except 800 version where they totally screwed up(look at the 787-9 sales).

seabosdca wrote:

Blotto wrote:

Would Airbus make more competitive a340 with four CFM Leap 1A same as the on A321neo.
What do you think?

Would save a lot of fuel, but still wouldn't be competitive with the A350 overall.

But reengined A340-300's might be useful for special military and scientific applications. NASA has a DC-72 that often flies to very remote areas of the world. An A340 with four Leap engines would be a great platform for scientific research.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

Blotto wrote:

Would Airbus make more competitive a340 with four CFM Leap 1A same as the on A321neo.
What do you think?

Would save a lot of fuel, but still wouldn't be competitive with the A350 overall.

But reengined A340-300's might be useful for special military and scientific applications. NASA has a DC-72 that often flies to very remote areas of the world. An A340 with four Leap engines would be a great platform for scientific research.

I don't think Airbus will support it, so a third party will have to undertake the conversion, like on those DC8s. Are there enough A343 frames in good enough condition to justify CFM setting up a conversion programme? With a huge backlog on the A320/B737, is there even spare capacity to supply engines for other types?

flee wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

Would save a lot of fuel, but still wouldn't be competitive with the A350 overall.

But reengined A340-300's might be useful for special military and scientific applications. NASA has a DC-72 that often flies to very remote areas of the world. An A340 with four Leap engines would be a great platform for scientific research.

I don't think Airbus will support it, so a third party will have to undertake the conversion, like on those DC8s. Are there enough A343 frames in good enough condition to justify CFM setting up a conversion programme? With a huge backlog on the A320/B737, is there even spare capacity to supply engines for other types?

The cost of the conversion certification would be a nonstarter. The new engines would be multiple times more expensive than the host airframe. Lastly any nation that needs that reach has a tanker capable air transport. No way would there be a viable conversion program. A340s are a parts source for their much more successful A330 brethren, nothing more at this point.

Spacepope wrote:

flee wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

But reengined A340-300's might be useful for special military and scientific applications. NASA has a DC-72 that often flies to very remote areas of the world. An A340 with four Leap engines would be a great platform for scientific research.

I don't think Airbus will support it, so a third party will have to undertake the conversion, like on those DC8s. Are there enough A343 frames in good enough condition to justify CFM setting up a conversion programme? With a huge backlog on the A320/B737, is there even spare capacity to supply engines for other types?

The cost of the conversion certification would be a nonstarter. The new engines would be multiple times more expensive than the host airframe. Lastly any nation that needs that reach has a tanker capable air transport. No way would there be a viable conversion program. A340s are a parts source for their much more successful A330 brethren, nothing more at this point.

What about flying as experimental planes? I can't imagine a twin engined plane even with ETOPS 330 flying over Antarctica the way NASA's DC-8-72 does.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

flee wrote:

I don't think Airbus will support it, so a third party will have to undertake the conversion, like on those DC8s. Are there enough A343 frames in good enough condition to justify CFM setting up a conversion programme? With a huge backlog on the A320/B737, is there even spare capacity to supply engines for other types?

The cost of the conversion certification would be a nonstarter. The new engines would be multiple times more expensive than the host airframe. Lastly any nation that needs that reach has a tanker capable air transport. No way would there be a viable conversion program. A340s are a parts source for their much more successful A330 brethren, nothing more at this point.

What about flying as experimental planes? I can't imagine a twin engined plane even with ETOPS 330 flying over Antarctica the way NASA's DC-8-72 does.

You could just use a normal A343 for that, no reason to re-engine as the base bird has enough range already. Regarding a re-engine, you could notionally stick four GTFs on an A343 to create a "349neo," akin to a 339, but for that payload/range bracket the 350 is already better-optimized as a clean-sheet design.

LH707330 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

The cost of the conversion certification would be a nonstarter. The new engines would be multiple times more expensive than the host airframe. Lastly any nation that needs that reach has a tanker capable air transport. No way would there be a viable conversion program. A340s are a parts source for their much more successful A330 brethren, nothing more at this point.

What about flying as experimental planes? I can't imagine a twin engined plane even with ETOPS 330 flying over Antarctica the way NASA's DC-8-72 does.

You could just use a normal A343 for that, no reason to re-engine as the base bird has enough range already. Regarding a re-engine, you could notionally stick four GTFs on an A343 to create a "349neo," akin to a 339, but for that payload/range bracket the 350 is already better-optimized as a clean-sheet design.

Do note that the new engines also weigh a fair bit more - since there are 4 of them, the weight and drag (they have bigger diameter fans) penalties might make them uneconomic.

The GE CEO Brian Rowe offered Airbus to put the GE90 on the A330, but Airbus declined, saying that they would go with 4 engines for long haul. Which led to th GE90-110B1 and -115B becoming exclusive for the second gen. 777s and therefore killing the A340.

While it looks stupid today, one should not forget that the A343 with the CFMs (and not the planed Superfan) did okay against the first gen. 777s. Even GE did offer to make an engine for the next gen. A340s, if they would get an exclusive deal. Airbus refused that and RR won against P&W and came up with the not so awesome Trent 500. GE then became a risk sharing partner on the second gen. 777 and made the outstanding second generation of GE90s which together with the 777 changed the industry.

Imho if Airbus would have decided to use the GE90 on the A330, there would have been no A345/6, the 777 would have faced more serious competition and Boeing would not have been able to sign an exclusive deal on the second gen, GE90s for their second gen 777s.

Remember that GE upgraded the CF6 for the A330 with a bigger fan. This isn't by any means a dud. It's the second biggest seller today but is still competitive and still selling albeit in small numbers and coming to the end of its production run on the A330CEO.

The A330 and A340 share many undercarriage components. The GE90 is also a big, heavy longhauler compared to the three motors on offer on the A330 platform so to hang a next-generation engine such as a Trent 800 or GE90 would have needed expensive work to carry the extra load and thrust, and maybe extra undercarriage clearance. The PW4000 family did make it onto the A330 in a derivative form (PW4168).

First-gen GE90 motors were not that desirable but that's another story.

flee wrote:

LH707330 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

What about flying as experimental planes? I can't imagine a twin engined plane even with ETOPS 330 flying over Antarctica the way NASA's DC-8-72 does.

You could just use a normal A343 for that, no reason to re-engine as the base bird has enough range already. Regarding a re-engine, you could notionally stick four GTFs on an A343 to create a "349neo," akin to a 339, but for that payload/range bracket the 350 is already better-optimized as a clean-sheet design.

Do note that the new engines also weigh a fair bit more - since there are 4 of them, the weight and drag (they have bigger diameter fans) penalties might make them uneconomic.

Sure they're heavier, but the fuel burn savings more than pay for that. Look at the A320, they decided that the weight penalty of the bigger, more efficient engines, was worth it. Given that the 343 has roughly double the range of an A320, it would benefit more from heavier, but more efficient engines. That's not to say I think it's a smart business decision to do it, merely that you'd get a ~15% fuel savings by going from CFM56-5Cs to PW1135Gs on the 343.

WTF? This thread is still going?

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1381101

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1378023&p=19942033#p19942033

I think the A340-300 was still the right call at that moment in time. However the 200 wasn't (even though it was very cheap). Instead they should've pulled the A330-200 four years forward.

Then around 1998/99, they could've replaced the four engine A340-300 with the A330-300ER and 400ER with two 777 engines based on the same 276,5T MTOW. Requiring no major redesign of the MLG or wings.

Like others have said that would've given Boeing a lot more trouble than the A340-500/600 and way before the 777-300ER. Furthermore they would've had an engineering surplus for not having to do the 500/600 and been able to update A300 with a 52m wing and re-establish itself in that market as well.

That goes to show how bad the effects of dogmatic thinking can be.

As Taxi 645 says nobody/very few people blame a young Airbus for producing the 343.As stated it was supposed to have a breakthrough engine.Furthermore ETOPS was very different back then.The Cfm powered version was pretty good anyway.But....After that.You could write a book on it 'how to get it so wrong'.
It's interesting just how many times Airbus has snatched defeat from the hands of victory!
These are the very same people that pioneered the large twin from the very outset -then let Boeing take nearly all of it.Incredible.
And what were they doing all the while? Making 1960's quad after quad after quad.Oh my God.Hell they even wanted to build another still bigger one in the 389!!Talk about bloody minded.
But they did stumble upon a winner, an offshoot of the 340 ,the ( twin) A330.So what did they do? Absolutly nothing,calling the new direct competition a 'Chinese copy' ( bet that went down well in China).Their final response to this 'Chinese copy' is only being tested now over a decade later.A warmed over cobbled together revamp.Great.The final chapter of that management team is still to be written in the courts...

Taxi645 wrote:

I think the A340-300 was still the right call at that moment in time. However the 200 wasn't (even though it was very cheap). Instead they should've pulled the A330-200 four years forward.
[...]
That goes to show how bad the effects of dogmatic thinking can be.

Dear Taxi645,

Let's have a look at the Airbus widebody line-up back in 1992:

1) The A300-600R (280pax, 4000nm)
2) The A310-300 (240pax, 5200nm)
3) The A330-300 (330pax, 4500nm) -> this applies to the initial version with 218t MTOW
4) The A340-200 (280pax, 6600nm) -> this applies to the initial version with 259t MTOW
5) The A340-300 (330pax, 6000nm) -> this applies to the initial version with 259t MTOW

As you can see, the ranges offered by all Airbus widebodies except the A340-200 were rather on the low side. May airlines required 6500+nm ranges for their trans-pacific, EU to South America or EU to SE Asia networks. Also remember that the markets outside the US accounted for the majority of the Airbus customer base. In this context, the A340-200 was seen as an absolute necessity!

Now, Airbus has a track record of pushing the ranges of their airliners way up during their active life, so they also did with the A340 in 1995. The result was a MTOW increase to 275t or 276,5t (called "HGW" or "X") on both variants, enabling the A340-300 for 7150nm missions and pushing the -200 into the ULR niche (8100nm). As a result, only 28 units of the A340-200 were built, since the A340-300 could perform most missions, and at a better CASM than the -200.

Now let me please come to your implicit question, why Airbus did not immediately go for the 330-200?
As you can see from my list above, the market spot of a [email protected], which is roughly the performance of the initial 234t A330-200, was already occupied by the A340 (in-between both versions). Therefore Airbus simlpy did'nt see a need to develop the A330-200, in particular a A330-200 with the same 218t MTOW was (rightfully) seen as a non-starter.

Things would then change in the mid-1990's for the following reasons:

- Customers were unhappy with the economics of the A340-200
- The A340-300 was too large for some missions, the A310-300 too small and offered too little range
- The A330-300 offered too little range
- There was a simple, fast and cheap MTOW upgrade path for the A330, thanks to the fact that it shared the same wing with the A340, capable to lift 275t.

It still took Airbus a number of years (EIS 1998) to deliver the first A330-200, but it gained a great popularity in the market (662 units built, vs. 787 units of the A330-300).

To conclude, let me state that I would not accuse Airbus of "dogmatic thinking" about the A330 program and the first generation A340. These aircraft were "the right things to do" at the time each of them was in development, given the market requirements and technical possibilities.

Best regards,
Hendric

Thank you Hendric for your full reply.However I would suggest that it fails to address why Airbus wasted so much time and effort per suing quads when nobody else was.Not just once but continuously over and over again for multiple decades with failure after failure.It becomes even more bizarre when it was Airbus who had the initial lead in wide bodied twins which they simply threw away.Perverse is the word that comes to mind.
Hard thing to say but if they really can't do their marketing correctly,best to leave it to Boeing and follow them.There is no doubt that Airbus is capable of creating fantastically well engineered products.The A320 Vs the 737 family.The 330 family Vs the 767 family.But every time their marketing guys 'go it alone' they come up with ideas that nobody wants! I would suggest that the A350 family simply copies the 772er and 773er and both seem fine - although heaven knows why they thought that a shrink (A358) was ever going to compete with the 787.I really would love to ask someone who was involved.Really peculiar thinking and somewhat embarrassing when the whole marketplace goes -eh?
Don't they talk to anybody?

parapente wrote:

Thank you Hendric for your full reply.However I would suggest that it fails to address why Airbus wasted so much time and effort per suing quads when nobody else was.Not just once but continuously over and over again for multiple decades with failure after failure.It becomes even more bizarre when it was Airbus who had the initial lead in wide bodied twins which they simply threw away.Perverse is the word that comes to mind.
Hard thing to say but if they really can't do their marketing correctly,best to leave it to Boeing and follow them.There is no doubt that Airbus is capable of creating fantastically well engineered products.The A320 Vs the 737 family.The 330 family Vs the 767 family.But every time their marketing guys 'go it alone' they come up with ideas that nobody wants! I would suggest that the A350 family simply copies the 772er and 773er and both seem fine - although heaven knows why they thought that a shrink (A358) was ever going to compete with the 787.I really would love to ask someone who was involved.Really peculiar thinking and somewhat embarrassing when the whole marketplace goes -eh?
Don't they talk to anybody?

Dear parapente,

You certainly have got a point. And yes, as I stated earlier in this thread, Airbus really should have launched a 350-style project back in the late 1990s, when they worked on the 2nd gen A340 instead.

But in a more general sense, I feel like recently both big jet manufacturers have produced only very few widebody hits, vs. quite a lot of average and low commercial successes:
Hits: A359, B788, B789
Average: A339, A351, A388, B779
Low: A338, A358*, A388+*, B778 (* designates projects that did not reach commercial stage)

So for me, it seems like a very tough task for the aircraft manufacturers to hit the right market spot in the widebody segment.

Hendric

parapente wrote:

Thank you Hendric for your full reply.However I would suggest that it fails to address why Airbus wasted so much time and effort per suing quads when nobody else was.Not just once but continuously over and over again for multiple decades with failure after failure.It becomes even more bizarre when it was Airbus who had the initial lead in wide bodied twins which they simply threw away.Perverse is the word that comes to mind.
Hard thing to say but if they really can't do their marketing correctly,best to leave it to Boeing and follow them.There is no doubt that Airbus is capable of creating fantastically well engineered products.The A320 Vs the 737 family.The 330 family Vs the 767 family.But every time their marketing guys 'go it alone' they come up with ideas that nobody wants! I would suggest that the A350 family simply copies the 772er and 773er and both seem fine - although heaven knows why they thought that a shrink (A358) was ever going to compete with the 787.I really would love to ask someone who was involved.Really peculiar thinking and somewhat embarrassing when the whole marketplace goes -eh?
Don't they talk to anybody?

It is always nice if people try to rewrite history when viewing back.

The situation when Airbus developed the A330/340 was a bit different than you seem to imagine.

Airbus was still a small manufacturer far below the size of Boeing. They manufactured the A310/A300 short to medium haul wide body. They had just started to produce the A320 and wanted to move into the long haul sector.
The competition in the long haul sector were at that time the 747-400, the DC10/MD11 and the Lockheed Tristar was already fading away. No long haul twin in sight, but perhaps the 767-200/300ER. Airlines still wanted more engines for long haul than only two. ETOPS was just starting. 1985 the first ETOPS 120 guideline appeared.

At that time Airbus developed out of the A300 the combined A330, the than biggest wide body twin, with the than biggest available engine, and the same fuselage same wing A340. The A330 was the medium haul A300 replacement and the A340 was to compete with the long haul 4 and 3 engined frames.

What the hell did the small aircraft manufacturer did wrong with this move? It is together the most successful wide body program yet. Yes there are single models in that line up that flopped, but that you have with any other wide body family that you could name.

parapente wrote:

I really would love to ask someone who was involved.

It might be a good idea to do so before you draw such conclusions and judgements.


Gruß, masi1157

[quote="LoganTheBogan"]Well we know it already exists (A330/A350), however it is worth noting that Airbus did almost get GE90s for the A330quote]
And when was that?? GE Paid a PILE of money to be the sole source Engine provider on it's widebody airplanes. But? with that agreement? It became Locked into Boeing ONLY. Were they to provide a GE90 to Airbus? Then their Sole Source deal would be Null and Void. As of Now and for the forseeable future? Only Rolls is the only other engine Manufacturer to supply engines to Boeing.

hitower3 wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

I think the A340-300 was still the right call at that moment in time. However the 200 wasn't (even though it was very cheap). Instead they should've pulled the A330-200 four years forward.
[...]
That goes to show how bad the effects of dogmatic thinking can be.

Dear Taxi645,

Let's have a look at the Airbus widebody line-up back in 1992:

1) The A300-600R (280pax, 4000nm)
2) The A310-300 (240pax, 5200nm)
3) The A330-300 (330pax, 4500nm) -> this applies to the initial version with 218t MTOW
4) The A340-200 (280pax, 6600nm) -> this applies to the initial version with 259t MTOW
5) The A340-300 (330pax, 6000nm) -> this applies to the initial version with 259t MTOW

As you can see, the ranges offered by all Airbus widebodies except the A340-200 were rather on the low side. May airlines required 6500+nm ranges for their trans-pacific, EU to South America or EU to SE Asia networks. Also remember that the markets outside the US accounted for the majority of the Airbus customer base. In this context, the A340-200 was seen as an absolute necessity!

Now, Airbus has a track record of pushing the ranges of their airliners way up during their active life, so they also did with the A340 in 1995. The result was a MTOW increase to 275t or 276,5t (called "HGW" or "X") on both variants, enabling the A340-300 for 7150nm missions and pushing the -200 into the ULR niche (8100nm). As a result, only 28 units of the A340-200 were built, since the A340-300 could perform most missions, and at a better CASM than the -200.

Now let me please come to your implicit question, why Airbus did not immediately go for the 330-200?
As you can see from my list above, the market spot of a [email protected], which is roughly the performance of the initial 234t A330-200, was already occupied by the A340 (in-between both versions). Therefore Airbus simlpy did'nt see a need to develop the A330-200, in particular a A330-200 with the same 218t MTOW was (rightfully) seen as a non-starter.

Things would then change in the mid-1990's for the following reasons:

- Customers were unhappy with the economics of the A340-200
- The A340-300 was too large for some missions, the A310-300 too small and offered too little range
- The A330-300 offered too little range
- There was a simple, fast and cheap MTOW upgrade path for the A330, thanks to the fact that it shared the same wing with the A340, capable to lift 275t.

It still took Airbus a number of years (EIS 1998) to deliver the first A330-200, but it gained a great popularity in the market (662 units built, vs. 787 units of the A330-300).

To conclude, let me state that I would not accuse Airbus of "dogmatic thinking" about the A330 program and the first generation A340. These aircraft were "the right things to do" at the time each of them was in development, given the market requirements and technical possibilities.

Best regards,
Hendric

I seem to remember that Airbus did not immediately buy into the ETOPS scheme as they saw it as a safety issue (they claim) Were you to read the ETOPS rules? You would see that the FAA had their concerns as well.. However? The US Airlines won the day and readily grasped the ETOPS operating Principles and haven't looked back. EROPS is now in use world wide and Airbus had to compete with Boeing so they bought in.

Hello Hendric, thank you for your well supported post giving more substance to the discussion. Sorry to reply so late, I'm not always in a position to reply in a timely manner. I will also admit that of course hindsight is easy.

hitower3 wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

I think the A340-300 was still the right call at that moment in time. However the 200 wasn't (even though it was very cheap). Instead they should've pulled the A330-200 four years forward.
[...]
That goes to show how bad the effects of dogmatic thinking can be.

Dear Taxi645,

Let's have a look at the Airbus widebody line-up back in 1992:

1) The A300-600R (280pax, 4000nm)
2) The A310-300 (240pax, 5200nm)
3) The A330-300 (330pax, 4500nm) -> this applies to the initial version with 218t MTOW
4) The A340-200 (280pax, 6600nm) -> this applies to the initial version with 259t MTOW
5) The A340-300 (330pax, 6000nm) -> this applies to the initial version with 259t MTOW

As you can see, the ranges offered by all Airbus widebodies except the A340-200 were rather on the low side. May airlines required 6500+nm ranges for their trans-pacific, EU to South America or EU to SE Asia networks. Also remember that the markets outside the US accounted for the majority of the Airbus customer base. In this context, the A340-200 was seen as an absolute necessity!

Now, Airbus has a track record of pushing the ranges of their airliners way up during their active life, so they also did with the A340 in 1995. The result was a MTOW increase to 275t or 276,5t (called "HGW" or "X") on both variants, enabling the A340-300 for 7150nm missions and pushing the -200 into the ULR niche (8100nm). As a result, only 28 units of the A340-200 were built, since the A340-300 could perform most missions, and at a better CASM than the -200.

The way you put it, it sounds like the A340-200 wasn't successful because of the MTOW/range increase airlines could just as easily choose the 300. That could've been a good point if the A340-200 had sold 228 units, not if it sold only 28 units. Then the plane is just not competitive since launch regardless of any MTOW/range increases. Hence they should've launched the A330-200 right away instead even if it was a different market segment.

Now let me please come to your implicit question, why Airbus did not immediately go for the 330-200?
As you can see from my list above, the market spot of a [email protected], which is roughly the performance of the initial 234t A330-200, was already occupied by the A340 (in-between both versions). Therefore Airbus simlpy did'nt see a need to develop the A330-200, in particular a A330-200 with the same 218t MTOW was (rightfully) seen as a non-starter.

What I'm saying is there shouldn't have been an A340-200 in the first place. If we look at the EIS we see the following:

A340-200: 1993
A340-300: 1993

A330-300: 1994
A330-200: 1998

What I'm saying is, it should've looked like this:

A340-300: 1993

A330-300: 1994
A330-200: 1994

I think between 1994 and 1998 they could've sold at least a 100 widebodies more that way and have more engineering resources available for other projects.

Things would then change in the mid-1990's for the following reasons:

- Customers were unhappy with the economics of the A340-200
- The A340-300 was too large for some missions, the A310-300 too small and offered too little range
- The A330-300 offered too little range
- There was a simple, fast and cheap MTOW upgrade path for the A330, thanks to the fact that it shared the same wing with the A340, capable to lift 275t.

It still took Airbus a number of years (EIS 1998) to deliver the first A330-200, but it gained a great popularity in the market (662 units built, vs. 787 units of the A330-300).

To conclude, let me state that I would not accuse Airbus of "dogmatic thinking" about the A330 program and the first generation A340. These aircraft were "the right things to do" at the time each of them was in development, given the market requirements and technical possibilities.

My comment about the dogmatic thinking was directed at the A340-500 and 600, but I disagree the A340-200 and the timing of the A330-200 were the right things to do given market requirements and technical possibilities. There is a difference between fulfilling a market segment and fulfilling it successfully. You can provide the right capacity and range, but if you can't do it competitively in the market, you won't have a successful product. This is what Airbus got wrong with the A340-200 and then again with the A340-500 and 600. In the latter case, I reckon it was indeed a combination of dogmatic thinking and the desire to full fill each segment without making sure enough the product was actually competitive.

An A330-300ER and A340-400ER could have given Boeing and the 777 really a lot of trouble 5 years before the 777-300ER entered service. Further SFC advances would've evolutionary raised the range. Sure without the 600 margin's on the 747-400 would've been better, but that was short lived with the introduction of the 777W anyway two years later. It would've given them time and a good position to work on their long range products.

mjoelnir wrote:

What the hell did the small aircraft manufacturer did wrong with this move? It is together the most successful wide body program yet. Yes there are single models in that line up that flopped, but that you have with any other wide body family that you could name.

In summation, move away from quads and towards big twins sooner than it did.

Even Leahy admits that not doing this was a major strategic mistake, one we still feel the repercussions of today.

Revelation wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

What the hell did the small aircraft manufacturer did wrong with this move? It is together the most successful wide body program yet. Yes there are single models in that line up that flopped, but that you have with any other wide body family that you could name.

In summation, move away from quads and towards big twins sooner than it did.

Even Leahy admits that not doing this was a major strategic mistake, one we still feel the repercussions of today.

Nice try of history revision.

We are talking here about the mid eighties. Boeing is bringing it's new model quad 747-400 EIS 1989, best selling model of the 747 line. ETOPS is just starting with ETOPS 120, first ETOPS 180 flight in 1889. The decision to build the A340 is done before ETOPS is established.

What repercussion is Airbus feeling? Moving up from being number four in commercial aircraft producers, to stand nearly even with the combined, than number one and two, producers?

mjoelnir wrote:

Nice try of history revision.

We are talking here about the mid eighties. Boeing is bringing it's new model quad 747-400 EIS 1989, best selling model of the 747 line. ETOPS is just starting with ETOPS 120, first ETOPS 180 flight in 1889. The decision to build the A340 is done before ETOPS is established.

What repercussion is Airbus feeling? Moving up from being number four in commercial aircraft producers, to stand nearly even with the combined, than number one and two, producers?

We're talking about "A340 with two GE90’s" and GE90s didn't even EIS till the mid nineties.

GE's offer to pay for the cost of integrating GE90 on A330 happened after 777's EIS, so it's even later.

Read that again: GE offered to pay to integrate GE90 on A330 and Airbus said no.

All Airbus had to do was enable the center tank and use the extra thrust to lift the extra fuel and they would have had a monster big twin to undermine the 777E with.

Instead they chose to invest in the A340 and keep the A330 hobbled so it wouldn't compete with the A340.

And here we are in the late 2010s and Airbus has finally enabled the center fuel tank and added bigger engines and MTOW bumps to A330, go figure.

Airbus's decision to invest in A340-500/600 knowing that 777 had growth models planned was always going to be a mistake, caused by the management of that time looking backwards towards quads rather than forwards towards big twins.

The same management team pulled the trigger on the A380, and we know how that went.

Revelation wrote:

And here we are in the late 2010s and Airbus has finally enabled the center fuel tank and added bigger engines and MTOW bumps to A330, go figure

However, there is no increase in thrust - this is more an efficiency update to improve the economics of the aircraft.

Revelation wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Nice try of history revision.

We are talking here about the mid eighties. Boeing is bringing it's new model quad 747-400 EIS 1989, best selling model of the 747 line. ETOPS is just starting with ETOPS 120, first ETOPS 180 flight in 1889. The decision to build the A340 is done before ETOPS is established.

What repercussion is Airbus feeling? Moving up from being number four in commercial aircraft producers, to stand nearly even with the combined, than number one and two, producers?

We're talking about "A340 with two GE90’s" and GE90s didn't even EIS till the mid nineties.

GE's offer to pay for the cost of integrating GE90 on A330 happened after 777's EIS, so it's even later.

Read that again: GE offered to pay to integrate GE90 on A330 and Airbus said no.

All Airbus had to do was enable the center tank and use the extra thrust to lift the extra fuel and they would have had a monster big twin to undermine the 777E with.

Instead they chose to invest in the A340 and keep the A330 hobbled so it wouldn't compete with the A340.

And here we are in the late 2010s and Airbus has finally enabled the center fuel tank and added bigger engines and MTOW bumps to A330, go figure.

Airbus's decision to invest in A340-500/600 knowing that 777 had growth models planned was always going to be a mistake, caused by the management of that time looking backwards towards quads rather than forwards towards big twins.

The same management team pulled the trigger on the A380, and we know how that went.

Airbus did add the center tank and went to 242 t MTOW without needing bigger engines on the A330, all the time selling the A330 like hot cakes. The A330 would not have been able to carry the GE90, it was designed for the biggest CF6, the CF6-80E1 if we talk about engines from GE.

We are here talking about adding the GE90's to the A340 and that can only mean the A340-500/600, because no other A330/340 frame would have needed that engine size.
Yes Airbus did make a mistake not to design that frame again for twin and quad, but the design was anyway hobbled, because those frames came out overweight, far heavier than planed. Airbus should have done a new fuselage instead of stretching the A300 fuselage one step to far.
We still talk about the most successful fuselage design.

Meanwhile Boeing, the several times bigger company, came out with two twin designs, first the 767 and than the 777, that became popular mainly in their stretched versions. They integrated the second biggest aircraft producer and saw Airbus grow into a serious rival. And here people are talking about what mistakes Airbus did.
Airbus became big on the back of the A300 and A320 designs.

mjoelnir wrote:

Revelation wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Nice try of history revision.

We are talking here about the mid eighties. Boeing is bringing it's new model quad 747-400 EIS 1989, best selling model of the 747 line. ETOPS is just starting with ETOPS 120, first ETOPS 180 flight in 1889. The decision to build the A340 is done before ETOPS is established.

What repercussion is Airbus feeling? Moving up from being number four in commercial aircraft producers, to stand nearly even with the combined, than number one and two, producers?

We're talking about "A340 with two GE90’s" and GE90s didn't even EIS till the mid nineties.

GE's offer to pay for the cost of integrating GE90 on A330 happened after 777's EIS, so it's even later.

Read that again: GE offered to pay to integrate GE90 on A330 and Airbus said no.

All Airbus had to do was enable the center tank and use the extra thrust to lift the extra fuel and they would have had a monster big twin to undermine the 777E with.

Instead they chose to invest in the A340 and keep the A330 hobbled so it wouldn't compete with the A340.

And here we are in the late 2010s and Airbus has finally enabled the center fuel tank and added bigger engines and MTOW bumps to A330, go figure.

Airbus's decision to invest in A340-500/600 knowing that 777 had growth models planned was always going to be a mistake, caused by the management of that time looking backwards towards quads rather than forwards towards big twins.

The same management team pulled the trigger on the A380, and we know how that went.

Airbus did add the center tank and went to 242 t MTOW without needing bigger engines on the A330, all the time selling the A330 like hot cakes. The A330 would not have been able to carry the GE90, it was designed for the biggest CF6, the CF6-80E1 if we talk about engines from GE.

We are here talking about adding the GE90's to the A340 and that can only mean the A340-500/600, because no other A330/340 frame would have needed that engine size.
Yes Airbus did make a mistake not to design that frame again for twin and quad, but the design was anyway hobbled, because those frames came out overweight, far heavier than planed. Airbus should have done a new fuselage instead of stretching the A300 fuselage one step to far.
We still talk about the most successful fuselage design.

Meanwhile Boeing, the several times bigger company, came out with two twin designs, first the 767 and than the 777, that became popular mainly in their stretched versions. They integrated the second biggest aircraft producer and saw Airbus grow into a serious rival. And here people are talking about what mistakes Airbus did.
Airbus became big on the back of the A300 and A320 designs.

There should never have been a second 4 engine A340 just like they shouldn't have stretched the fuselage to the 600's length. They should've accepted that it wasn't a capacity and range they could've economically competed with based on their 8-abreast fuselage.

Around 98/99 they should've gone twins full stop at 276.5 MTOW and about 84k lbf. One model at 300 length and one simple stretch to between 70-72m (6.600-6.700 nm range) and accept they would have more range and capacity in future. Imagine what such a plane would have been able to do in the market back then...


The 600 length, range and quad configuration was just too much to be economically viable. It is understandable Airbus wanted to offer more range and capacity, but only a total of 159 A340 planes were delivered with more range than the A340-300. So their strategy clearly did not work.

Companies like people make mistakes, it's normal. Airbus still is an awesome company. Just learn from them. Not launching the A350-800 in the proposed form seems to indicate they have learned.

The Airbus that we have today is the culmination of the lessons learnt since the day of their incorporation. Now that the management is transitioning to a new, younger team who may not have been around in their formative years, it would be interesting to see how this new management will steer Airbus. Will it rise to greater heights or will it crash and burn? Time will tell.

Taxi645 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Revelation wrote:

We're talking about "A340 with two GE90’s" and GE90s didn't even EIS till the mid nineties.

GE's offer to pay for the cost of integrating GE90 on A330 happened after 777's EIS, so it's even later.

Read that again: GE offered to pay to integrate GE90 on A330 and Airbus said no.

All Airbus had to do was enable the center tank and use the extra thrust to lift the extra fuel and they would have had a monster big twin to undermine the 777E with.

Instead they chose to invest in the A340 and keep the A330 hobbled so it wouldn't compete with the A340.

And here we are in the late 2010s and Airbus has finally enabled the center fuel tank and added bigger engines and MTOW bumps to A330, go figure.

Airbus's decision to invest in A340-500/600 knowing that 777 had growth models planned was always going to be a mistake, caused by the management of that time looking backwards towards quads rather than forwards towards big twins.

The same management team pulled the trigger on the A380, and we know how that went.

Airbus did add the center tank and went to 242 t MTOW without needing bigger engines on the A330, all the time selling the A330 like hot cakes. The A330 would not have been able to carry the GE90, it was designed for the biggest CF6, the CF6-80E1 if we talk about engines from GE.

We are here talking about adding the GE90's to the A340 and that can only mean the A340-500/600, because no other A330/340 frame would have needed that engine size.
Yes Airbus did make a mistake not to design that frame again for twin and quad, but the design was anyway hobbled, because those frames came out overweight, far heavier than planed. Airbus should have done a new fuselage instead of stretching the A300 fuselage one step to far.
We still talk about the most successful fuselage design.

Meanwhile Boeing, the several times bigger company, came out with two twin designs, first the 767 and than the 777, that became popular mainly in their stretched versions. They integrated the second biggest aircraft producer and saw Airbus grow into a serious rival. And here people are talking about what mistakes Airbus did.
Airbus became big on the back of the A300 and A320 designs.

for some reason
There should never have been a second 4 engine A340 just like they shouldn't have stretched the fuselage to the 600's length. They should've accepted that it wasn't a capacity and range they could've economically competed with based on their 8-abreast fuselage.

Around 98/99 they should've gone twins full stop at 276.5 MTOW and about 84k lbf. One model at 300 length and one simple stretch to between 70-72m (6.600-6.700 nm range) and accept they would have more range and capacity in future. Imagine what such a plane would have been able to do in the market back then...
. Maintenance
The 600 length, range and quad configuration was just too much to be economically viable. It is understandable Airbus wanted to offer more range and capacity, but only a total of 159 A340 planes were d, livered with more range than the A340-300. So their strategy clearly did not work.

Companies like people make mistakes, it's normal. Airbus still is an awesome company. Just learn from them. Not launching the A350-800 in the proposed form seems to indicate they have learned.

What made the A340 Obsolete? The same thing that made the B747 and DC10 and L1011 obsolete Airlines could get the same performance from a Twin Engine airplane with Bigger Engines like the PW40090, the GE90 or the Rolls Trent. The downside of the big Twin Engine airplanes?
Logistics!! If you should have an engine go "south" Halfway around the World? You might have to fork out over $1 million to get it back in the Air because of the shipping costs of a new engine as they cannot be easily shipped fully assembled Except by Volga Dneper with their AN225 cargo Airplane.. As the C5 Galaxy is not in commercial use for Charter.

mjoelnir wrote:

Revelation wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Nice try of history revision.

We are talking here about the mid eighties. Boeing is bringing it's new model quad 747-400 EIS 1989, best selling model of the 747 line. ETOPS is just starting with ETOPS 120, first ETOPS 180 flight in 1889. The decision to build the A340 is done before ETOPS is established.

What repercussion is Airbus feeling? Moving up from being number four in commercial aircraft producers, to stand nearly even with the combined, than number one and two, producers?

We're talking about "A340 with two GE90’s" and GE90s didn't even EIS till the mid nineties.

GE's offer to pay for the cost of integrating GE90 on A330 happened after 777's EIS, so it's even later.

Read that again: GE offered to pay to integrate GE90 on A330 and Airbus said no.

All Airbus had to do was enable the center tank and use the extra thrust to lift the extra fuel and they would have had a monster big twin to undermine the 777E with.

Instead they chose to invest in the A340 and keep the A330 hobbled so it wouldn't compete with the A340.

And here we are in the late 2010s and Airbus has finally enabled the center fuel tank and added bigger engines and MTOW bumps to A330, go figure.

Airbus's decision to invest in A340-500/600 knowing that 777 had growth models planned was always going to be a mistake, caused by the management of that time looking backwards towards quads rather than forwards towards big twins.

The same management team pulled the trigger on the A380, and we know how that went.

Airbus did add the center tank and went to 242 t MTOW without needing bigger engines on the A330, all the time selling the A330 like hot cakes. The A330 would not have been able to carry the GE90, it was designed for the biggest CF6, the CF6-80E1 if we talk about engines from GE.

We are here talking about adding the GE90's to the A340 and that can only mean the A340-500/600, because no other A330/340 frame would have needed that engine size.
Yes Airbus did make a mistake not to design that frame again for twin and quad, but the design was anyway hobbled, because those frames came out overweight, far heavier than planed. Airbus should have done a new fuselage instead of stretching the A300 fuselage one step to far.
We still talk about the most successful fuselage design.

Meanwhile Boeing, the several times bigger company, came out with two twin designs, first the 767 and than the 777, that became popular mainly in their stretched versions. They integrated the second biggest aircraft producer and saw Airbus grow into a serious rival. And here people are talking about what mistakes Airbus did.
Airbus became big on the back of the A300 and A320 designs.

Well if Airbus had used a new cross section and seriously modified A-340 wing, how do they convince the FAA to treat it as a derivative of the A340/A330 and not a whole new type?

The GE90 came in a thrust range between the mid 80's Klb to 115 Klb. A family of large twin Airbus using GE90's could have been possible at several sizes. It was the incredible efficiency of the GE90 that overshot its design goals that made the 77W the A340 killer.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Revelation wrote:

We're talking about "A340 with two GE90’s" and GE90s didn't even EIS till the mid nineties.

GE's offer to pay for the cost of integrating GE90 on A330 happened after 777's EIS, so it's even later.

Read that again: GE offered to pay to integrate GE90 on A330 and Airbus said no.

All Airbus had to do was enable the center tank and use the extra thrust to lift the extra fuel and they would have had a monster big twin to undermine the 777E with.

Instead they chose to invest in the A340 and keep the A330 hobbled so it wouldn't compete with the A340.

And here we are in the late 2010s and Airbus has finally enabled the center fuel tank and added bigger engines and MTOW bumps to A330, go figure.

Airbus's decision to invest in A340-500/600 knowing that 777 had growth models planned was always going to be a mistake, caused by the management of that time looking backwards towards quads rather than forwards towards big twins.

The same management team pulled the trigger on the A380, and we know how that went.

Airbus did add the center tank and went to 242 t MTOW without needing bigger engines on the A330, all the time selling the A330 like hot cakes. The A330 would not have been able to carry the GE90, it was designed for the biggest CF6, the CF6-80E1 if we talk about engines from GE.

We are here talking about adding the GE90's to the A340 and that can only mean the A340-500/600, because no other A330/340 frame would have needed that engine size.
Yes Airbus did make a mistake not to design that frame again for twin and quad, but the design was anyway hobbled, because those frames came out overweight, far heavier than planed. Airbus should have done a new fuselage instead of stretching the A300 fuselage one step to far.
We still talk about the most successful fuselage design.

Meanwhile Boeing, the several times bigger company, came out with two twin designs, first the 767 and than the 777, that became popular mainly in their stretched versions. They integrated the second biggest aircraft producer and saw Airbus grow into a serious rival. And here people are talking about what mistakes Airbus did.
Airbus became big on the back of the A300 and A320 designs.

Well if Airbus had used a new cross section and seriously modified A-340 wing, how do they convince the FAA to treat it as a derivative of the A340/A330 and not a whole new type?

The GE90 came in a thrust range between the mid 80's Klb to 115 Klb. A family of large twin Airbus using GE90's could have been possible at several sizes. It was the incredible efficiency of the GE90 that overshot its design goals that made the 77W the A340 killer.

So what? This obsession with type. The A330 and A340, the same fuselage, wings, additional center MLG on the A340, was not treated as the same type because of simply the engine number, technical those two are more similar than frames that are accepted as one type. A wholly administrative decision.
So a two engined A340-600 would not have been the same type as a A340-600 either.

The 777-300ER was the A340-600 killer, only one model in the A330/A340 lineup. The A340-300 was not killed, neither the A330-200 or the A330-300. Boeing had nothing that could compete with the A330 until they started on the 787.
All together the A330/A340 brought 2110 orders and up to now 1801 deliveries, add the A300/310 and you get 2926 and 2618 respectively. All on the fuselage of the A300, once shrinkend and two times stretched.

we are discussing about an A340 with two engines - that's obviously absurd - but what about an A340 with 4 GE90s?
Or 4 PW4090?

FatCat wrote:

we are discussing about an A340 with two engines - that's obviously absurd - but what about an A340 with 4 GE90s?
Or 4 PW4090?

Both engines to big for the A340-600 as a quad. Trent 500 56 klbf, smallest GE90 81 klbf.

seabosdca wrote:

Blotto wrote:

Would Airbus make more competitive a340 with four CFM Leap 1A same as the on A321neo.
What do you think?

Would save a lot of fuel, but still wouldn't be competitive with the A350 overall.

One has to know, more parts on an a/c, more maintenance it requires and in turns more $ for the airline. So no 4-holers anymore I'd say.

But feel free to bring back the L1011!