As the A350 comes in, the A340 goes out.

And now that might be delayed by a lot.

As A343s and A333s are needed for EW; the A346 might stay a bit longer with LH mainline.

Just saw a photo in the database of three parked in Arizona (D-AIHP, D-AIHR, D-AIHS)

According to Planespotters, another is stored at Wuppertal (D-AIHM)

They are only 10-11 years young. Apparently most of their retired A343s were scrapped, with a few going to other airlines or the German air force.

What kind of life could these four beautiful birds have, if any? Has Lufthansa managed to sell them to any of the big second hand aircraft buyers?

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Lufthans ... /4650599/L

Maybe a few will go to VIP operators, but I would not expect much of a secondhand life for the A346.

Such a shame

345tas wrote:

According to Planespotters, another is stored at Wuppertal (D-AIHM)

Store an aircraft in Wuppertal might be a bit difficult
The planes name is Wuppertal and it's stored at Pinal Airpark, Marana.

DABYT wrote:

345tas wrote:

According to Planespotters, another is stored at Wuppertal (D-AIHM)

Store an aircraft in Wuppertal might be a bit difficult
The planes name is Wuppertal and it's stored at Pinal Airpark, Marana.

Hehe. I considered Googling Wuppertal because I'd never heard of it... but didn't.

ElroyJetson wrote:

The 346 was the Airbus attempt to polish a turd (i.e. the 340 was not a good design...so you make a derivative that is even worse). For LH the decision makes perfect sense.

Why fly a 346 when you can fly a 359 with 30% or more lower operating costs?

For a passenger the A346 is beautiful and comfortable plane and this ANetter will be sad to see them leave the world's fleets - the economics though are clear!

seahawk wrote:

And now that might be delayed by a lot.

As A343s and A333s are needed for EW; the A346 might stay a bit longer with LH mainline.

No.

What a shame. I always loved LH's A340-600. I flew on D-AIHU a month after she entered service.

DocLightning wrote:

Recall that the A345/A346 family never sold that well, so that means that spare parts are going to run short earlier in the aircraft's life cycle than for an aircraft that sold a lot of copies like the 744.

At least for the unique spares on the other hand, they can be a source of spares for A330's.

LAX772LR wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

Recall that the A345/A346 family never sold that well

Almost shockingly so.

It's easy to realize what a failure the A345 was, but I always sorta figured the A346 to be a not-good-as-its-competitor-but-still-decent-selling....

....until you realize that even the MD11, often also considered to be a total sales flop, still sold *TWICE* as many units as the A346 did.

Especially when you consider how much change there was compared to the A330/A340 200's and 300's.

While I see that the A340-600s will not last forever I still do not understand why they should go out of service before the 744s. They are inferior to the 77Ws, but not to the 744s.

A350-1000 would have been the perfect aircraft to replace the A346's

I know an aircraft broker. I could buy a 744 for 5 million or less. I want an A345 though...the market is so small though, comps are almost impossible.

waly777 wrote:

Pellegrine wrote:

PlymSpotter wrote:

Yes this is true, and the A343 does best 77E fuel burn over many stage lengths. I don't know why so many here have gotten it wrong for soooooo long.

Marginally better fuel consumption for the A343, but the 77E is bigger, can lift more and fly farther.....

This is exactly what you call an nonequivalent comparison.

You look at the same stage length and payload. A343 at 275t MTOW would come in #1 up until ~7150nm.

You are describing a cost/return scenario where for equality, you'd have to load both aircraft to say 2/3rds maximum payload and determine the same fuel usage over the same stage length.

Using a certain individual percentage of max payload and flying as far as possible will never be a direct comparison for any two aircraft.

I can say this. Any sub-7,000 nm mission where they're 200 pax+bags and maybe scant cargo...the A343 would win that fuel burn hands down.

345tas wrote:

Just saw a photo in the database of three parked in Arizona (D-AIHP, D-AIHR, D-AIHS)

According to Planespotters, another is stored at Wuppertal (D-AIHM)

They are only 10-11 years young. Apparently most of their retired A343s were scrapped, with a few going to other airlines or the German air force.

What kind of life could these four beautiful birds have, if any? Has Lufthansa managed to sell them to any of the big second hand aircraft buyers?

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Lufthans ... /4650599/L

Almost certainly LH deferred maintenance to an old D-check standard to minimize costs. These A340s will have too big an expense to bring through the maintenance check.

Most maintenance is done heavy C checks, but when a plane will not fly into the next heavy maintenance interval, millions in maintenance will be differed unless the plane has resale value.

Lightsaber

Is there an update to what LH plans to do with its A346s or when?

The five A380s moving from FRA to MUC are taking some A346 routes, and the A359 is taking up a LOT of A346 routes starting in S18:
http://lufthansaflyer.boardingarea.com/ ... summer-18/

(That link doesn't include ORD, DEN, EWR, or YVR, which will also transition to A350 routes.)

That's a lot of A350-A346 replacements...

tigerotor77w wrote:

Is there an update to what LH plans to do with its A346s or when?

The five A380s moving from FRA to MUC are taking some A346 routes, and the A359 is taking up a LOT of A346 routes starting in S18:
http://lufthansaflyer.boardingarea.com/ ... summer-18/

(That link doesn't include ORD, DEN, EWR, or YVR, which will also transition to A350 routes.)

That's a lot of A350-A346 replacements...

Internal memo suggested that MUC based A346s will be gone by 2019, and this is the update that was made within the last week. No mention about the five soon-to-be-FRA-based A346s yet.

Michael

eamondzhang wrote:

tigerotor77w wrote:

Is there an update to what LH plans to do with its A346s or when?

The five A380s moving from FRA to MUC are taking some A346 routes, and the A359 is taking up a LOT of A346 routes starting in S18:
http://lufthansaflyer.boardingarea.com/ ... summer-18/

(That link doesn't include ORD, DEN, EWR, or YVR, which will also transition to A350 routes.)

That's a lot of A350-A346 replacements...

Internal memo suggested that MUC based A346s will be gone by 2019, and this is the update that was made within the last week. No mention about the five soon-to-be-FRA-based A346s yet.

Michael

I wish I could say I'm surprised that all MUC A346s are done by YE 2018. The reality is only IB & SAA A346s and one or two ex-EY A345s completed the first heavy maintenance interval. I suspect even LH differed maintenance such that performing the next heavy C would almost be an old D-check. Just not economical. Not with A359s arriving.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

.... The reality is only IB & SAA A346s and one or two ex-EY A345s completed the first heavy maintenance interval....

Does this mean that the A346s are getting flat out retired as quickly as the A350s come in? Or that they're getting moved elsewhere in the LH fleet?

They weren't bad birds... will miss seeing them.

Actually its 11 of the 24 A346 parked/stored.

Source: https://sites.google.com/site/lhgroupfleet/lufthansa

[/quote]

Does this mean that the A346s are getting flat out retired as quickly as the A350s come in? Or that they're getting moved elsewhere in the LH fleet?

They weren't bad birds... will miss seeing them.[/quote]

My Guess would be that we will only see the 5-6 346 operating from FRA from the winter schedule 18/19.

With 5 more A350 entering LH until 09/18, they should be almost gone at MUC soon (my guess NOV/DEC18) ....

lightsaber wrote:

I wish I could say I'm surprised that all MUC A346s are done by YE 2018. The reality is only IB & SAA A346s and one or two ex-EY A345s completed the first heavy maintenance interval. I suspect even LH differed maintenance such that performing the next heavy C would almost be an old D-check. Just not economical. Not with A359s arriving.

Lightsaber

Indeed. Although a bit sad, but who can predict in 2010 that almost none of the A340NGs will complete a D-check?

Michael

lightsaber wrote:

jetwet1 wrote:

bgm wrote:

Why was the A340 not a good design?

The 346 was a good design, the problem is the 77W is a great design....

I am surprised though that with cheap fuel and the 346's ability to haul freight it hasn't found a niche somewhere.

Freight rates are lower. It still costs more to fly an A346 than a 77W. But the A350 has stopped selling as the economics aren't good enough. The 787 and A350 are now better. Soon, the 777-9 will fly the routes of the A346. How long could an A346 compete with a 777X? Not very long.


Once the 787-10, 777X, and A35K hit the fleet, cargo rates will drop a little. Supply vs. demand.

Lightsaber

It’s true that the 77W performs better but if you have to buy a new 77W or 350 or whatever it’s gonna be always more expensive than keeping a “new” 346 which it’s alread been paid and in good shape like the ones in LH or IB with new interiors...

Many A346 sales included buybacks (pre-arranged trade in prices, a negotiating ploy learned by Airbus from vehicle leasing and rental industries).

In those optimistic days, customers trading against another A340 model got the best deal, less for other Airbus family acquisitions, and much lower for a competitor product.

Not only is there the overhang now of major service costs, but by continuing to fly, you reduce the trade in value, by moving into a higher hours / cycle threshold.

Many A346's are contingently owned by Airbus (or related entity), with just the delivery of an A350 or A330 away from technical completion, although for tax and balance sheet reasons...................

lightsaber wrote:

I wish I could say I'm surprised that all MUC A346s are done by YE 2018. The reality is only IB & SAA A346s and one or two ex-EY A345s completed the first heavy maintenance interval. I suspect even LH differed maintenance such that performing the next heavy C would almost be an old D-check. Just not economical. Not with A359s arriving.

Lightsaber

I have heard that the A340-600 is a particularly expensive type to maintain. Not necessarily due to the quad engines but rather because so few of it were built and the line closed fairly early. It probably is also the prime reason why there is no P2F conversion for it. The sad thing is that several of these frames aren't even 10 years old.

A350 wrote:

While I see that the A340-600s will not last forever I still do not understand why they should go out of service before the 744s. They are inferior to the 77Ws, but not to the 744s.

The A346, in particular the engines, never achieved sufficient economy of scale to be economical to maintain.
Per airfleets.net production summary:
747s: 516 still flying
A345/A346=34+97 or 131 built
Total A340 in operation is only 183.

The 744 is now a freight hauler, minus a few examples so there is plenty of economy of scale for the type. Airfleet's has 183 A340s, including A343s, still flying. That just isn't enough for a340 specific parts, in particular as the A342, A343, and A345/6 break commonality. Yes, some parts are common with the A330. But not stuff supporting the engines, not the fuel subsystems, not the majority of the replaceable parts in the anti-ice subsystems, nor some of the center gear parts. Unfortunately, the A346 economics for maintenance are not sustainable. The A345 was heavy for what it lifted, so like most 'shrinks,' is doomed to an early retirement.

The 744 benefits from economy of scale on the engines. PW4000 and CF6 were on 767s (so were RB211s, but not so many of those).

Lightsaber

Andy33 wrote:

Bear in mind that there is huge commonality between the A340s and A330s which were built side by side on the same production line. Since the A330 is very much still in production, spares for A340 versions aren't likely to be anywhere near as much of a problem as many think

But not as much commonality between the A330/A340 200 and 300 vs the A340 500 and 600. I really can't see why Airbus went for such an extreme stretch as the A300/A330/A340 fuselage. A more modest stretch would not have the weight penalties for a high aspect ratio, and they could have gone for a large twin configuration to compete against the 777 with the same engines as the 777 which was already in service by the time the A340-500 and 600 came out.

For those who think a new plane costs too much, why has every airline *except* SAA come up with a replacement plan?:
http://www.mro-network.com/maintenance- ... irbus-a340

Yes, the above is an old link, butsadly still true.

mxaxai wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

I wish I could say I'm surprised that all MUC A346s are done by YE 2018. The reality is only IB & SAA A346s and one or two ex-EY A345s completed the first heavy maintenance interval. I suspect even LH differed maintenance such that performing the next heavy C would almost be an old D-check. Just not economical. Not with A359s arriving.

Lightsaber

I have heard that the A340-600 is a particularly expensive type to maintain. Not necessarily due to the quad engines but rather because so few of it were built and the line closed fairly early. It probably is also the prime reason why there is no P2F conversion for it. The sad thing is that several of these frames aren't even 10 years old.

It isn't just the small number, there are some specific issues the long length created:

Landing gear cracks if you turn the A346 too quickly (note, link only a summary unless you have a subscription):
http://aviationweek.com/awin/a340-600-l ... gear-crack
Note: Even the A330 gear is problematic (but not horridly): http://services.casa.gov.au/airworth/ai ... 6-0108.pdf

The A330/A340 family of aircraft has issues with fuel pumps, so twice as many engines is twice as many fuel pumps: https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... -airplanes

I've heard rumors (but I don't know if they were true), that SAA's A346s had (repairable) wing spar cracking. But there is an airworthiness directive from 2007: http://caacaad.org.cn/nmanage/uploadfil ... 07_207.pdf


RR, at first, was charging so much for engine overhauls that EY and EK decided to return to Airbus the Early A345s instead of going through an overhaul interval.

The A340-600 of same condition as a 77W is $15 million less for resale value:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/new-life ... -james-kim

With 777s being spun off at an accelerating rate, the used A340s are competing in a tougher used market. Recall the A340-600 empty weight came in 6 tons high. It never met costs to haul payload at range because of the over-weight.

This old link claims SAA could replace the A346s and reduce fuel consumption and maintenance costs by 40%. Per that link, the A359 will cost 11% less (after financing) to fly than the A346.

LH is excellent at keeping maintenance costs in check. The 744 is an unruly beast for maintenance, but LH and BA have kept the costs in check. Something is up with the A346 is LH is retiring them early.

Lightsaber

I see that Lufthansa is transferring 12 A340-300s to Eurowings and Brussel. I wonder why they are doing that?

Narfish641 wrote:

I see that Lufthansa is transferring 12 A340-300s to Eurowings and Brussel. I wonder why they are doing that?

Because the A340-300 is actually quite efficient and with both the A350 arriving at LH and AB going out of business they can use the extra short-term capacity. The -300 also has maximum commonality with the A330 fleet, unlike the significantly revamped -500 & -600.
I'm not sure if Eurowings has gained ETOPS 120 approval by now but that might be a benefit as well.

Narfish641 wrote:

I see that Lufthansa is transferring 12 A340-300s to Eurowings and Brussel. I wonder why they are doing that?

12 ? I only heard of two going to Eurowings. The other 10 going to Brussels then ???

345tas wrote:

DABYT wrote:

345tas wrote:

According to Planespotters, another is stored at Wuppertal (D-AIHM)

Store an aircraft in Wuppertal might be a bit difficult
The planes name is Wuppertal and it's stored at Pinal Airpark, Marana.

Hehe. I considered Googling Wuppertal because I'd never heard of it... but didn't.

You should visit. It is Close to Düsseldorf and has a great decommissioned railway line you can do bicycling on for 15km, including old tunnels. Pretty cool. Also, Wuppertal has the "Schwebebahn", a unique monorail transportation System where the coaches are "floating" above the Wupper river.

Of course, most of the City cannot conceal that it has seen better times before. But try the railway line from Vohwinkel (Nordbahntrasse).

columba wrote:

Narfish641 wrote:

I see that Lufthansa is transferring 12 A340-300s to Eurowings and Brussel. I wonder why they are doing that?

12 ? I only heard of two going to Eurowings. The other 10 going to Brussels then ???

Not as far as I'm aware of. I'm only aware of the two that goes to SN who will operate the bird for EW. The rest will stay with LH.

Michael

lightsaber wrote:

Something is up with the A346 is LH is retiring them early.

Simple: Engine costs. The contract with RR is pretty backloaded, making operations more expensive by time. So this is the type that is retired as soon as possible. For the A343 LH is thinking of using the ESG and fly them longer.

columba wrote:

Narfish641 wrote:

I see that Lufthansa is transferring 12 A340-300s to Eurowings and Brussel. I wonder why they are doing that?

12 ? I only heard of two going to Eurowings. The other 10 going to Brussels then ???

I hate to throw another number into the mix, but I believe it is 6 LH 343s (operated by CityLine) that are being transferred to SN to be operated for EW. There was a source saying that two 343s will be transferred over each IATA season until there are 6 total, so that's probably where you got the 2 from. This summer there will just be the first 2.

columba wrote:

12 ? I only heard of two going to Eurowings. The other 10 going to Brussels then ???

Yeah I should of detailed more. So in summary, there are currently 17 A340-300 operating at Lufthansa, one is already transferred to operate at Eurowings on behalf of Brussels with another aircraft to follow soon, another 6 will be transferred to Brussel Airlines and will be operated on behalf of Eurowings. Lufthansa will have only 6 A340-300 remaining in their fleet. However, not so sure if they are gonna retire them that fast.

Anyone know which LH A346 routes still exist in Summer 2018?

GG22 wrote:

Anyone know which LH A346 routes still exist in Summer 2018?

FRA-HKG/PEK/ICN/LAX and MUC-JFK/SFO/MEX is all I'm aware for now.

Michael

eamondzhang wrote:

GG22 wrote:

Anyone know which LH A346 routes still exist in Summer 2018?

FRA-HKG/PEK/ICN/LAX and MUC-JFK/SFO/MEX is all I'm aware for now.

Michael

MUC-HND as well (according to LH's website).

Something is up with the A346 is LH is retiring them early.

My guess is, it's a special contract with RR.


Initially the engine mx costs on the A346 were horrible. So much that in the slow-down after the 2008 stock market crash LH was about to park less then 5 year old birds. Everbody always goes on about the A346's wheight and fuel consumption, but that really wasn't the deal breaker. Because RR and Airbus didn't want to lose one of their high-scale customers, RR gave LH a mx deal about 5-6 years ago, that cut the engine mx costs on the A346 for LH in half. That deal is of course rouinous for RR because they lose tons of money on LH's A346 engine mx.

So I think since LH management is usually pretty smart about cutting deals on aircraft purchases, they also got a special deal worked out with RR here. They probably got the engines for the A350 really cheap from RR if in return they park the A346s and thus release RR from that rouinous mx deal.


The first part is definitly fact and was also posted in the LH employee magazine a couple years back; the second part is my own theory, just so that nobody accuses me of not providing sources

Greets,
T1a

Looks like the last day of the A346 at SFO is Oct 26 after which they'll be sending the A380 from both FRA and MUC. Two LH A380s per day at SFO!

shane wrote:

Looks like the last day of the A346 at SFO is Oct 26 after which they'll be sending the A380 from both FRA and MUC. Two LH A380s per day at SFO!

They won't send two A380. FRA - SFO will be A346.

DABYT wrote:

shane wrote:

Looks like the last day of the A346 at SFO is Oct 26 after which they'll be sending the A380 from both FRA and MUC. Two LH A380s per day at SFO!

They won't send two A380. FRA - SFO will be A346.

I stand corrected. Looks like there is only one day with double A380s. Seems surprising that the larger capacity would go to MUC rather than to FRA, though I guess they're letting UA handle a lot of it.

T1a wrote:

Something is up with the A346 is LH is retiring them early.

My guess is, it's a special contract with RR.


Initially the engine mx costs on the A346 were horrible. So much that in the slow-down after the 2008 stock market crash LH was about to park less then 5 year old birds. Everbody always goes on about the A346's wheight and fuel consumption, but that really wasn't the deal breaker. Because RR and Airbus didn't want to lose one of their high-scale customers, RR gave LH a mx deal about 5-6 years ago, that cut the engine mx costs on the A346 for LH in half. That deal is of course rouinous for RR because they lose tons of money on LH's A346 engine mx.

So I think since LH management is usually pretty smart about cutting deals on aircraft purchases, they also got a special deal worked out with RR here. They probably got the engines for the A350 really cheap from RR if in return they park the A346s and thus release RR from that rouinous mx deal.


The first part is definitly fact and was also posted in the LH employee magazine a couple years back; the second part is my own theory, just so that nobody accuses me of not providing sources

Greets,
T1a

PBTH pricing consists of two components - fixed and variable. The variable component includes excess hours, cycles and a 'use' category. Also PiP's which are mostly mandatory. The variable component can include a discount for low use/cycles.

PBTH customers can 'fix' costs for periods of up to 15 years, but three or five years revolving is common.

Engine manufacturers reward customers that join PBTH on day one (penalise those that don't).

LH are a customer that used to opt out of engine maintenance contracts, pretty much mandatory for WB aircraft engines.

Later, LH decided to opt in, but wanted Day One pricing.

Many A346 customers enjoyed a buyback deal, guaranteeing pre-determined trade-in prices based on age, hours and cycles. Likely LH indicated it's intention to invoke this, as a bargaining ploy to extract better terms from RR, with pressure from Airbus.

For PBTH customers, fixed and variable charges, plus performance erosion guarantees, are on a par with similar sized engines from other OEM's of the same design and delivery era. It's a pricey engine for those who opt out of PBTH, or took PBTH for a short, finite period, and then want to opt back in again.

JA786A wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

GG22 wrote:

Anyone know which LH A346 routes still exist in Summer 2018?

FRA-HKG/PEK/ICN/LAX and MUC-JFK/SFO/MEX is all I'm aware for now.

Michael

MUC-HND as well (according to LH's website).

I believe HND route went perm to A359 from last Dec. Maybe it's just the LH website that hasn't been updated for summer schedule (yet).

Michael

GG22 wrote:

Anyone know which LH A346 routes still exist in Summer 2018?

Looking at the current schedules for the last week of June, I see the following:

FRA-LAX
FRA-RUH-DMM
FRA-ICN
FRA-PEK
FRA-HKG
MUC-SFO
MUC-DEN (1x weekly)
MUC-JFK (6x weekly)
MUC-MEX (5x weekly)
MUC-HND
MUC-PVG

I believe 13 frames are required to operate that schedule.

FSDan wrote:

GG22 wrote:

Anyone know which LH A346 routes still exist in Summer 2018?

I believe 13 frames are required to operate that schedule.

Luckily they still fly these graceful birds. On the fuel economy side they are outdated, but I love to see them and made quite a number of very fine flights on LH's A346's. It will be a bit sad to see them eventually leave the fleet, but all good things come to an end.