Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
DocLightning wrote:Recall that the A345/A346 family never sold that well
IAHWorldflyer wrote:Who still flies this variant? I can think of LH, IB, VA, SAA and maybe Etihad.
Polot wrote:IAHWorldflyer wrote:Who still flies this variant? I can think of LH, IB, VA, SAA and maybe Etihad.
Add QR and Mahan Air and I believe that is it in terms of commercial operators.
Polot wrote:IAHWorldflyer wrote:Who still flies this variant? I can think of LH, IB, VA, SAA and maybe Etihad.
Add QR and Mahan Air and I believe that is it in terms of commercial operators.
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?
bgm wrote: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?
Why was the A340 not a good design?
jetwet1 wrote:bgm wrote: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?
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.
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?
bgm wrote: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?
Why was the A340 not a good design?
aviationaware wrote:They are being replaced by A350s. Once the A380s move to MUC, the remainder will move to FRA.
fraspotter wrote:aviationaware wrote:They are being replaced by A350s. Once the A380s move to MUC, the remainder will move to FRA.
From what I read they're only moving 5 A380s to MUC to take over flights to LAX, PEK and HKG and leaving the remainder at FRA. Is this still the case?
jetwet1 wrote:bgm wrote: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?
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.
na wrote:
Agreed with the latter, but to say that the A340 was not a good design in general is just false. It killed the MD11-market even before the 777 arrived. The A340 is a particularly quiet and smooth performer, better than the competitor 777 in that respect. For the passenger, the A340 is equal to even the latest 777. Far before everything else, its just the money, and the fuel burn that makes the difference.
The fate of the second A340 generation was that it came just two or so years before the 77W. On top, while the A340-600 underperformed, the 77W overperformed. Nobody could expect that during the time the launch customers ordered them, and Airbus apparently quickly found that to be uncurable and killed the program. The A350 shows they were right. The A350 overperforms again, has the ability to beat the 777, while its superb engines are from the same manufacturer as the lemons propelling the A346s.
LAX772LR wrote:....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.
fightforlove wrote:I always wondered why Airbus didn't quickly make an A346neo in the mid-00s after it was quickly realized that the base version had missed it's target specs and was getting eaten alive in sales by the 77W.
fraspotter wrote:aviationaware wrote:They are being replaced by A350s. Once the A380s move to MUC, the remainder will move to FRA.
From what I read they're only moving 5 A380s to MUC to take over flights to LAX, PEK and HKG and leaving the remainder at FRA. Is this still the case?
eamondzhang wrote:That's right. 5 to MUC, with (I assume) the same number of A346s shifting to FRA.
Michael
ElroyJetson wrote:bgm wrote: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?
Why was the A340 not a good design?
It was compromised from the start because the superfan engine Airbus wanted for the A340 never materialized. Hence the A340 was outdated and inefficient almost from the date of its first flight. This is why the 777 outsold the A340 almost 5 to 1.
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?
B777LRF wrote:The A346 was never meant to go up against the 77W. It was meant as a B747-200/-300 replacement, and based on that brief it was an excellent design delivering great numbers. Trouble was, if that's what you'd call it, that Boeing over-delivered beyond it's wildest dreams with the 77W. But, just to be clear, the A346 fully lived up to it's brief: Be a better 747-200.
ElroyJetson wrote:bgm wrote: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?
Why was the A340 not a good design?
It was compromised from the start because the superfan engine Airbus wanted for the A340 never materialized. Hence the A340 was outdated and inefficient almost from the date of its first flight. This is why the 777 outsold the A340 almost 5 to 1.
B777LRF wrote:The A346 was never meant to go up against the 77W. It was meant as a B747-200/-300 replacement, and based on that brief it was an excellent design delivering great numbers. Trouble was, if that's what you'd call it, that Boeing over-delivered beyond it's wildest dreams with the 77W. But, just to be clear, the A346 fully lived up to it's brief: Be a better 747-200.
godsbeloved wrote:ElroyJetson wrote:bgm wrote:
Why was the A340 not a good design?
It was compromised from the start because the superfan engine Airbus wanted for the A340 never materialized. Hence the A340 was outdated and inefficient almost from the date of its first flight. This is why the 777 outsold the A340 almost 5 to 1.
Fuel burn on the A340 is not as bad as some people here pretend. There are other costs associated though with operating 4 engines instead of 2. Still many airlines make quite some money with these planes though and as a passengerI prefer the quietness and 2-4-2 over other airliners...
skipness1E wrote: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?
It did very well against the MD11 and sold well to major airlines like Air France, Lufthansa, Iberia et al.
Your last point is "Why fly an aircraft from a different generation when a more modern one is more fuel efficient." No, really?
zeke wrote:LAX772LR wrote:....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.
Is that actually true ?
The MD-11 was more than one model like the A340, which MD-11 model, are you referring to the MD-11, MD-11ER, or the MD11F ?
If you are referring to all MD-11s then you should refer to all A340s, after all it was the A340-300 which killed the MD-11 pax sales.
Polot wrote:
131 pax MD-11 were built + 5 factory MD-11ER. That is still more than the 97 A346s built (unsure of split between normal and HGW).
novarupta wrote:Polot wrote:
131 pax MD-11 were built + 5 factory MD-11ER. That is still more than the 97 A346s built (unsure of split between normal and HGW).
Approximately 370 A340s were built in total. Using one variant of the A340 against multiple variants of the MD-11 (Approx 200 total) isn't a fair comparison.
novarupta wrote:Polot wrote:
131 pax MD-11 were built + 5 factory MD-11ER. That is still more than the 97 A346s built (unsure of split between normal and HGW).
Approximately 370 A340s were built in total. Using one variant of the A340 against multiple variants of the MD-11 (Approx 200 total) isn't a fair comparison.
ElroyJetson wrote:bgm wrote: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?
Why was the A340 not a good design?
It was compromised from the start because the superfan engine Airbus wanted for the A340 never materialized. Hence the A340 was outdated and inefficient almost from the date of its first flight. This is why the 777 outsold the A340 almost 5 to 1.
lightsaber wrote:The T500 powered A340s are basically done. SQ and EK have retired the type. Soon EY will retire the type. VS is down to 8 A343 and 7 A346. Both will fade out soon. LH will slowly retire the type and then IB.
mjoelnir wrote:I think the thread starts with a misconception. Yes LH has 3 A340-600 stored, but has 21 frames still active. That is far from retiring most or all. The question is are those 3 retired or only temporarily stored and when will LH retire more. The 3 frames stored are not the oldest A340-600 at LH.
jetwet1 wrote:The 346 was a good design, the problem is the 77W is a great design...
ElroyJetson wrote:bgm wrote: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?
Why was the A340 not a good design?
It was compromised from the start because the superfan engine Airbus wanted for the A340 never materialized. Hence the A340 was outdated and inefficient almost from the date of its first flight. This is why the 777 outsold the A340 almost 5 to 1.
Polot wrote:novarupta wrote:Polot wrote:
131 pax MD-11 were built + 5 factory MD-11ER. That is still more than the 97 A346s built (unsure of split between normal and HGW).
Approximately 370 A340s were built in total. Using one variant of the A340 against multiple variants of the MD-11 (Approx 200 total) isn't a fair comparison.
Which is exactly why I compared one variant of the A340, the A346, to one variant of the MD-11 (the passenger version). The MD-11 only came in one size, it wasn't a family of passenger aircraft. I excluded the 64 MD-11Fs/MD-11CFs/MD-11Cs built.
LAX772LR wrote:fightforlove wrote:I always wondered why Airbus didn't quickly make an A346neo in the mid-00s after it was quickly realized that the base version had missed it's target specs and was getting eaten alive in sales by the 77W.
Because a new engine wouldn't have addressed the A346's primary "weakness"-- which is that the reinforcement required to support the long+narrow fuselage stretch, gave it a heap of deadweight that couldn't be taken out.
Polot wrote:mjoelnir wrote:I think the thread starts with a misconception. Yes LH has 3 A340-600 stored, but has 21 frames still active. That is far from retiring most or all. The question is are those 3 retired or only temporarily stored and when will LH retire more. The 3 frames stored are not the oldest A340-600 at LH.
LH has 17 active A346s, with 7 stored (D-AIHD/M/N/O/Q/R/S...I confirmed that none of those have flown recently), and according to the link in the OP has several more (6 to be exact) scheduled to withdrawn from use later this year or early next. I wouldn't hold my breath on these being temporary reductions.
fightforlove wrote:LAX772LR wrote:fightforlove wrote:I always wondered why Airbus didn't quickly make an A346neo in the mid-00s after it was quickly realized that the base version had missed it's target specs and was getting eaten alive in sales by the 77W.
Because a new engine wouldn't have addressed the A346's primary "weakness"-- which is that the reinforcement required to support the long+narrow fuselage stretch, gave it a heap of deadweight that couldn't be taken out.
Yeah no doubt the wider fuselage of the 777 made it more suited to a stretch than the A340, I think Airbus were also looking at composite materials to an A346"E"/"neo" at the time, but maybe that would have driven R&D costs beyond the scope of what they were trying to accomplish. Still looks bad in retrospect though with all the A350 delays to concede that corner of the market for years.