What is the point of the A340?

Originally posted by mongu
Yes, don’t take any notice of the PR blurb. Look at actual orders:

A340 family: 313
B777 family: 618

Some of this difference will be because the A330 is also in competition with the 777 (and the 767), so Airbus customers have more than one option.

Basically the aircraft were introduced at different times and the newer one should be superior. The latest 340s look like they redress the balance somewhat.

I would guess that ETOPS restrictions will have something to do with the 340’s appeal.

Mike

Originally posted by greekdude1
I love how nobody wishes to address the whole, “Airbus giving up on its products” issue. I believe the 763 is in the same class as the A332. The ranges and pax load are very similar. Again, that is debateable, because who does the 764 go head on with? Either way, it doesn’t matter. As I mentioned previously, both companies make great aircraft. Some are just better in particular markets, than others. As far as “what if’s” go, yeah, ‘what if?’ You can ‘what if?’ till you’re blue in the face. ‘What if’ Pan Am didn’t go under? ‘What if’ TWA hadn’t sold its Heathrow slots to AA back in 91? What if the RB211 didn’t ruin the L1011? ‘What if’ IAE had come through with the Superfan? Well, they didn’t, that’s the bottom line. As a result, the A340 was stuck with juiced up 737 engines till the 500 series Trents came out. My question is, why didn’t they just initially stick four 757 engines under there, a la the C-17 and IL-96M? At the time (still is), it was still a rather modern, fuel efficient engine, and they would have gotten better peformance on it.

I agree with most you say..specialy i think comparing Airbus and Boeing is unfair to both companies as both make world-class jets.

I dont think comparing freighters and commercial airliners is right. Airbus is not really active in freighter section…i heard a A330 F varient but just heard.

just a thought: do the figures referring to 747s take into account freighters? because as far as I know, there is no dedicated freighter version of A340s/330s, so it would be a bit of a boost to their figures…true, they’re still getting sold, but airbus is not competing against them in that area, so their numbers are misleading….:confused:

I love how nobody wishes to address the whole, “Airbus giving up on its products” issue. I believe the 763 is in the same class as the A332. The ranges and pax load are very similar. Again, that is debateable, because who does the 764 go head on with? Either way, it doesn’t matter. As I mentioned previously, both companies make great aircraft. Some are just better in particular markets, than others. As far as “what if’s” go, yeah, ‘what if?’ You can ‘what if?’ till you’re blue in the face. ‘What if’ Pan Am didn’t go under? ‘What if’ TWA hadn’t sold its Heathrow slots to AA back in 91? What if the RB211 didn’t ruin the L1011? ‘What if’ IAE had come through with the Superfan? Well, they didn’t, that’s the bottom line. As a result, the A340 was stuck with juiced up 737 engines till the 500 series Trents came out. My question is, why didn’t they just initially stick four 757 engines under there, a la the C-17 and IL-96M? At the time (still is), it was still a rather modern, fuel efficient engine, and they would have gotten better peformance on it.

That’s a thorny issue, because both companies benefitted from protectionism, perhaps Airbus more so.

I have nothing against the A340 by the way, it just struck me that the A330 seemed more modern! I still don’t understand why the A330 couldn’t have been made long range to be honest.

By the way, I do take the view that the 763/764/772/773 are all on product line which compete against the A332/333/342/343/345/346.

Originally posted by mongu
But when you add in the 763 and 764 the numbers agin revert in Boeing’s favour.

Not necessarily. Although this is subject to debate, I wouldn’t consider the 767-300 to be a competitor to anything in the A330/340 line. I’ve always considered the 767-300 to be a competitor to the A300-600 while the 767-400 competes with the A330-200. If the both 767-300 and -400 are included, then Boeing is in the lead by far. But if the -300 is not included, but the -400 is (as I believe), then Airbus leads, although by a much narrower margin. Here are the revised stats:

Boeing (767-300/767-400/777 family): 1264
Airbus (A330/340 family): 752

or

Boeing (767-400/777 family): 655
Airbus (A330/340 family): 752

Which ever method you agree with is simply a matter of personal opinion.

I still stand by my earlier replies that in a comperable time scale Airbus Industries achievments are marvellous with much more to come, These guys at Airbus have got “the bit between the teeth”……The show aint over yet!! Good points by the way from SuperHornetA330.

But when you add in the 763 and 764 the numbers agin revert in Boeing’s favour.

Fair point

Why does no one ever think to compare the 777 to both the A340 and A330? As far as I know, there were two initial versions of the 777-200: the baseline 200 which competes with the A330-300, and the 200ER which competes with the A340-300. While the 200ER is outselling the A340, keep in mind that the A330-200/300 far outsells the Boeing competition in the 767-400 and the baseline 777-200. Taking into account all members of each family, here are the stats:

777 family: 618
A330/A340 family: 752

sources:
http://www.airbus.com/media/orders_n_deliveries.asp

http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/displaystandardreport.cfm?cboCurrentModel=&cboAllModel=777&optReportType=HistAnnOrd&ViewReportF=View+Report

Mongu, I concede that the one engine inop scenario favours the 146 compared to other regional jets but this is the only area that I see it having an advantage. It still loses out on reliability, etc.
Most engine problems occur either during start up or during the take off roll. Putting four engines on a jet requires serious justification as it doubles your chances of an engine failure. 4 engined short haul (especially regional) jets do many sectors (ie many starts and take offs) so proportionally expose themselves to much increased risk from going tech compared to the twins. It really isn’t necessary when the aircraft is designed to be a relatively short take off and landing aircraft anyway. On the other hand for long haul 4 engined aircraft the balance of risk between increased likelihood of failure, freedom from ETOPS restrictions and less restriction from the one engine inop scenario makes 4 engines a more suitable option.

regards
wys

I agree with GD1 on some points. The A343 lacks power which affects its overal performance. I think Airbus aircraft sell so much just because they are fuel efficient, otherwise i dont see anythin in the A343 that is better than the B772.

Originally posted by dan330

A340-600
If I’m not mistaken the A340-600 compared to a 747 offers:
Vastly improved efficiency
More Cargo hold
More Range?
With slightly less passengers

Looking at the aircraft, its still been very successful, is in operation with a lot of leading airlines and I’m sure if you took away the aircraft operated by the US carriers (who will always order Boeing) then I think you’ll find the numbers to be very similar.

Not sure on that Dan.

Firstly, I think a fair comparision would be A346 and B773. We should probably leave the 744 out of this.

Secondly, US carriers do buy Airbus. US Airways is a mega Airbus customer; United and Northwest both have large Airbus fleets. Smaller carriers like Frontier and America West do as well. Even American Airlines flies a large number of A300s. Crikey, even their B772s are powered by RR! Looking at that, I can’t detect any nationalistic preference for Boeing over Airbus.

Which is perhaps more than can be said for some European state controlled airlines!

The truth is, Boeing produces some really good jetliners, as does Airbus. Mongu does bring forth an interesting statistic in the total 772 airframes vs. total A343 airframes. Are far as performance goes, the 772 does have powerful engines, and the A343 basically has 737 engines on steroids. They run at a much higher RPM, and as a result, burning an excessive amount of oil; moreso than other long haul types. I think Airbus screwed up on that front. However, I think they corrected that with the -600. I seriously doubt the -600 and the -500 will suffer in performance they way the -300 and -200 do. As I mentioned earlier, I don’t favor one company over the other. If anything, I want the A380 to be an amazing success, as well as these newer versions of the A340. I just don’t see how a company can give up on its own products like that. Singapore paid for those planes, in full I’m sure. Once you pay for something, it becomes yours. Who’s to say what you can or cannot do with that item once it does become yours? I’m just waiting for the day BMW is going to come after me for trading in my Beemer for an American car (Not that I would in my right mind do that!).

Originally posted by dan330
OK, got to stick up for the A340 here, its the best plane I’e flown on!

777-200 has already beaten A340-300

777-200LR beats A340-500
777-300ER beats A340-600

Any figures to back this up? Everytime I visited the Airbus website it said the A340 was the best selling aircraft in its class.

Yes, don’t take any notice of the PR blurb. Look at actual orders:

A340 family: 313
B777 family: 618

Sources:

http://www.airbus.com/media/orders_n_deliveries.asp
http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/displaystandardreport.cfm?optReportType=CurrentModels&cboCurrentModel=777&cboAllModel=&ViewReportF=View+Report

Wys, I don’t get your logic about 4 engines. In an engine-out scenario, your fave jet, the 146, suffers proportionately less loss of power than a CRJ or ERJ, yet I think you’d be the first to agree the latter types are more suitable for the majority of regional operations.

OK, got to stick up for the A340 here, its the best plane I’e flown on!

777-200 has already beaten A340-300

777-200LR beats A340-500
777-300ER beats A340-600

Any figures to back this up? Everytime I visited the Airbus website it said the A340 was the best selling aircraft in its class.

The fact the 777 has improved take-off (on all available engines)means very little I would have thought. The fact the A340 engines are small must mean they are very fuel efficient, there must be advantages to being slightly underpowered else it wouldn’t have been made this way?

How about ATC routings? I bet the 777 gets the best ones, because it can manouvre into them better.

I bet they don’t on transoceanic routes. The 777 will be restricted to certain ETOPS routings, where as the A340 can fly a lot more direct.

OK, back to the main question: Why bother with the A340.
It was developed (as said above) before the 777, I think basically to vill a void in the industry at the time for airlines that wanted long range, but where the 747 was simply too big.
Remember that at the time, the A330 wasn’t a great success, the -200 only came a few years later and the -300 didn’t have a very good range. Add the fact that it was cheap to develop and cheap to operate because of similarities with the A330 and you begin to see a point.

A340-600
If I’m not mistaken the A340-600 compared to a 747 offers:
Vastly improved efficiency
More Cargo hold
More Range?
With slightly less passengers

Looking at the aircraft, its still been very successful, is in operation with a lot of leading airlines and I’m sure if you took away the aircraft operated by the US carriers (who will always order Boeing) then I think you’ll find the numbers to be very similar.

The 757 has an advantage over an equivalent Airbus in that if the 2 types departed at the same time onidentical routes the 757 would get to altitude sooner and get the optimum level while the other would have to operate at a less efficient level.

MM seems to have sniffed what I am trying to evaluate here. The 777 is better in several areas than the A340 with all engines operating. However with one engine inoperative the 340 is relatively unaffected in comparison to the 777. Airfield performance is determined on one engine failing, so although you see 777’s storming out of most places with both engines running you may find that a 340 is surprisingly less performance limited than a 777!

Yes, but I think the thrust of my question was why did Airbus bother with the A340 and not just make a bigger A330?

When you think about it, that’s all the 777 is – something a bit bigger than an A330.

Also, the lack of performance seems a more serious issue than you lot give it credit for. You’d have to work the 4 engines really hard on some routes, which messes up their efficiency and increases maintainance costs. The spare power the 777 has is a big help there. I should also imagine, that in the case of SIA, a take off from SIN with a full load is quite demanding. How about ATC routings? I bet the 777 gets the best ones, because it can manouvre into them better.

Here’s one for Wys – does the 757 (an overpowered aircraft) get better ATC routings than other aircraft (like an A321) because of its power?

A quick question (which I shall explain my reasoning for later) but does any operator operate 777’s out of JNB?