I know that Airbus A340 went out of production in 2011. But ironically, the A340 is still listed as the ACJ340 (-600 presumably, and maybe the -300 as well) under the Airbus Corporate Jets section here in 2018. Any idea what this might mean for the A340's status?

Could they still build private A340's (one-off or individually, definitely not serial anymore)?

Or do they offer conversions from ex-airline A343 and A346 planes?

Note that I'm not in the market for my own private jet now. I'm just curious.

I think they bought back a few over the last few years as part of continuing deals on a330 and a350 series.

My guess is they can use those. Can't imagine they would build one from scratch at this point, though I guess for the A343 a lot of it is similar to the A333 from a fuselage structure perspective IIRC

The A340 has been officially withdrawn from offer as of 2011 and I'm pretty sure the FAL has been optimized to only produce the A330 now. As such, the A340s on offer are passenger to VIP conversions.

In addition to full conversions, Airbus also offers a refurbishment option called "Gala" that limits the VIP conversion to between Door 2 and Door 3. This significantly reduces both the conversion time and conversion cost and many widebody VIP frames have standard airline seating in the aft section for staff and support anyway.

I just really wish Airbus are willing to individually build A346's and A343's...

possibly off the A330's assembly line?

But other than private ACJ-340's, Airbus have almost no intentions to build any more A340 airframes, period.

acjbbj wrote:

I just really wish Airbus are willing to individually build A346's and A343's...

possibly off the A330's assembly line?

But other than private ACJ-340's, Airbus have almost no intentions to build any more A340 airframes, period.

There's zero market for them. The new A339 251T can fly just as far as the 343 could for significantly less costs and the 346 was a pig compared to even the 777-300ER, much less the A350.

Once Airbus stopped building the 343, significant changes were made to remove those additional structures from the wing. It will never be built again.

caverunner17 wrote:

acjbbj wrote:

I just really wish Airbus are willing to individually build A346's and A343's...

possibly off the A330's assembly line?

But other than private ACJ-340's, Airbus have almost no intentions to build any more A340 airframes, period.

There's zero market for them. The new A339 251T can fly just as far as the 343 could for significantly less costs and the 346 was a pig compared to even the 777-300ER, much less the A350.

Once Airbus stopped building the 343, significant changes were made to remove those additional structures from the wing. It will never be built again.

The A340-600 may have been the wrong aircraft at the wrong time but as a passenger I’d much rather fly on the “pig” than any 777. It is smooth, comfortable and spacious and the 2 + 4 + 2 configuration in Y is great. I’ve had a gazillion flights on the 777 and I’ve always found them noisy and uncomfortable compared to the 346. I know they are a dying breed but I love 4-holers and I go out of my way to fly them while I can. I prefer even the 343 to a 777.

Chrisba320 wrote:

caverunner17 wrote:

acjbbj wrote:

I just really wish Airbus are willing to individually build A346's and A343's...

possibly off the A330's assembly line?

But other than private ACJ-340's, Airbus have almost no intentions to build any more A340 airframes, period.

There's zero market for them. The new A339 251T can fly just as far as the 343 could for significantly less costs and the 346 was a pig compared to even the 777-300ER, much less the A350.

Once Airbus stopped building the 343, significant changes were made to remove those additional structures from the wing. It will never be built again.

The A340-600 may have been the wrong aircraft at the wrong time but as a passenger I’d much rather fly on the “pig” than any 777. It is smooth, comfortable and spacious and the 2 + 4 + 2 configuration in Y is great. I’ve had a gazillion flights on the 777 and I’ve always found them noisy and uncomfortable compared to the 346. I know they are a dying breed but I love 4-holers and I go out of my way to fly them while I can. I prefer even the 343 to a 777.

Same here. I LOVE any A340 (and A330), they are fantastic aircrafts to fly - smooth, quiet, spacious... so MUCH BETTER from a pax perspective than any 777.
As much as I love the looks of the mighty 777 I find far too noisy, especially at the back of the cabin. Turbulence ride is not so great either.

I find it puzzling that on an aviation enthusiasts' forum people continually bash the A340 lineup based on its supposed uncompetitive economics... maybe this is simply an accountants' forum after all??

Utter silence when the delta between the pig and 77W is half as much as the 77W and the A350-1000.

zeke wrote:

Utter silence when the delta between the pig and 77W is half as much as the 77W and the A350-1000.

Maybe because the readers here to their credit recognize the silliness of comparing planes designed in the last millennium to one that hasn't even flown a paying passenger yet?

acjbbj wrote:

I just really wish Airbus are willing to individually build A346's and A343's...

possibly off the A330's assembly line?

But other than private ACJ-340's, Airbus have almost no intentions to build any more A340 airframes, period.

IIRC, the wing structure originally was constructed so the same wing could be used for both A330 and A340. When A340 production ceased, the wing structure was changed so the wing cannot be fitted with outboard engines anymore. I don't know the correct English term, is it wing spar? Correct me if I am wrong.
This means a one-off A340 would be ridiculously expensive to build. That door is closed, locked and key thrown away.

Bricktop wrote:

zeke wrote:

Utter silence when the delta between the pig and 77W is half as much as the 77W and the A350-1000.

Maybe because the readers here to their credit recognize the silliness of comparing planes designed in the last millennium to one that hasn't even flown a paying passenger yet?

Firstly 77W is a 2005 airplane and secondly A350-1000 has been carrying passengers between LHR-DOH for a solid month.

Boeing can never beat Airbus in terms of noise control. I've had a lot of back-to-back Boeing to Airbus flights (including all current Boeing and Airbus widebodies) and the Boeings are simply awful in this respect.

Michael

oldannyboy wrote:

Chrisba320 wrote:

caverunner17 wrote:

There's zero market for them. The new A339 251T can fly just as far as the 343 could for significantly less costs and the 346 was a pig compared to even the 777-300ER, much less the A350.

Once Airbus stopped building the 343, significant changes were made to remove those additional structures from the wing. It will never be built again.

The A340-600 may have been the wrong aircraft at the wrong time but as a passenger I’d much rather fly on the “pig” than any 777. It is smooth, comfortable and spacious and the 2 + 4 + 2 configuration in Y is great. I’ve had a gazillion flights on the 777 and I’ve always found them noisy and uncomfortable compared to the 346. I know they are a dying breed but I love 4-holers and I go out of my way to fly them while I can. I prefer even the 343 to a 777.

Same here. I LOVE any A340 (and A330), they are fantastic aircrafts to fly - smooth, quiet, spacious... so MUCH BETTER from a pax perspective than any 777.
As much as I love the looks of the mighty 777 I find far too noisy, especially at the back of the cabin. Turbulence ride is not so great either.

I find it puzzling that on an aviation enthusiasts' forum people continually bash the A340 lineup based on its supposed uncompetitive economics... maybe this is simply an accountants' forum after all??

Agreed. I don't usually post on this forum but I thought I'll add my 2 cents on this topic. Although interested in it I'm not that bothered about economics, or the lack thereoff, that's for the airline bosses to worry about. As a passenger I'm never happier than when I am on a long-haul flight on a 343 or 346. The 350 is great too and it will probably take over as my favorite once the 4-holers are gone. But for now I get as much mileage on the 343/346 as possible. I didn't mention the 330 because of the title of the thread but yes, I love them too. At least it's easy to get a ride on a 330 and will be for many years to come. Looking forward to experiencing the 339.

eamondzhang wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

zeke wrote:

Utter silence when the delta between the pig and 77W is half as much as the 77W and the A350-1000.

Maybe because the readers here to their credit recognize the silliness of comparing planes designed in the last millennium to one that hasn't even flown a paying passenger yet?

Firstly 77W is a 2005 airplane and secondly A350-1000 has been carrying passengers between LHR-DOH for a solid month.

Boeing can never beat Airbus in terms of noise control. I've had a lot of back-to-back Boeing to Airbus flights (including all current Boeing and Airbus widebodies) and the Boeings are simply awful in this respect.

Michael

Couldn't agree with you more. I travel a lot as well and I always feel better after a long flight on an Airbus. Domestically, because of the equipment our local airlines use, I flip between 738 and 319/320 all the time, often on the same day. Night and day, in Airbus' favor.

eamondzhang wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

zeke wrote:

Utter silence when the delta between the pig and 77W is half as much as the 77W and the A350-1000.

Maybe because the readers here to their credit recognize the silliness of comparing planes designed in the last millennium to one that hasn't even flown a paying passenger yet?

Firstly 77W is a 2005 airplane and secondly A350-1000 has been carrying passengers between LHR-DOH for a solid month.

Boeing can never beat Airbus in terms of noise control. I've had a lot of back-to-back Boeing to Airbus flights (including all current Boeing and Airbus widebodies) and the Boeings are simply awful in this respect.

Michael

Firstly, the 77W had an EIS in 2005, but the lineage goes back longer than that as you well know. And ZOMG, QR has been flying the -1000 for a "solid month"! Mea culpa. The point is still valid on timeframes, hairsplitting notwithstanding.

But if you can show me where Zeke was talking about cabin noise, I would be grateful. "Boeing can never beat Airbus in terms of noise control" is one of those silly absolutist comments that only inspire derision. Oh, and FWIW I think the A346 is one of the best looking planes around, but I had better hurry if I want to fly on one.

Bricktop wrote:

zeke wrote:

Utter silence when the delta between the pig and 77W is half as much as the 77W and the A350-1000.

Maybe because the readers here to their credit recognize the silliness of comparing planes designed in the last millennium to one that hasn't even flown a paying passenger yet?

The talk is about today's buying decisions. The 777-300ER is still on offer.
If the A340-600 is a pig compared to the 777-300ER, being better in everything, but the 8 % fuel burn delta, even servicing the four RR T500 does cost about the same as servicing the 2 GE90-115.
What kind of animal is than the 777-300ER compared to the A350-1000, with an at least 15% fuel burn difference?

zeke wrote:

Utter silence when the delta between the pig and 77W is half as much as the 77W and the A350-1000.

1) You always claimed the delta between A340 and 777 was very small and overrated on a.net. If true the delta between 77W and A351 can't be that big.

2) Comparing the A346 to the 77W is fair, both are mid 2000s planes.

3) Comparing the 77W to the A351 is worthless as there is a generation gap of 10-15 years. Better then compare the A351 to the 778 or 779, depending on which mission we are talking.

mjoelnir wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

zeke wrote:

Utter silence when the delta between the pig and 77W is half as much as the 77W and the A350-1000.

Maybe because the readers here to their credit recognize the silliness of comparing planes designed in the last millennium to one that hasn't even flown a paying passenger yet?

The talk is about today's buying decisions. The 777-300ER is still on offer.
If the A340-600 is a pig compared to the 777-300ER, being better in everything, but the 8 % fuel burn delta, even servicing the four RR T500 does cost about the same as servicing the 2 GE90-115.
What kind of animal is than the 777-300ER compared to the A350-1000, with an at least 15% fuel burn difference?

Wrong. Read the OP, who discussed the curiosity that the A340 isn’t offered as a passenger plane, but still is as an ACJ.

The “pig” referenced by Zeke came from..

caverunner17 wrote:

There's zero market for them. The new A339 251T can fly just as far as the 343 could for significantly less costs and the 346 was a pig compared to even the 777-300ER, much less the A350.

Stating the obvious, that a plane from 1995 can’t compete with modern planes. Poster even referred to current Airbus offers as A339 and A359 as preferred options. A nice sop to Airbus fanboys, one would think. I can only imaging the umbrage if he’s thrown in the 787 instead of the now obsolete 77W.

After that, we have pretty much a love fest for the A340 as being quiet and comfortable for passengers, and it’s preferable to them over the 777. Fair enough. Then we have Zeke’s comment and my response, which seems to have been lost on you. But to calm all the jagged nerves, I stipulate that IMO a 2017 A350-1000 is a superior aircraft to a 2005 777-300ER. See, I even threw in EIS dates, Michael.

Just to set the record straight, the first 777-300ER was delivered in April 2004 with EIS in May 2004.

OldAeroGuy wrote:

Just to set the record straight, the first 777-300ER was delivered in April 2004 with EIS in May 2004.

Thanks, I relied (wrongly) on my remembery.

BTW, I love your sig!

Chrisba320 wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Maybe because the readers here to their credit recognize the silliness of comparing planes designed in the last millennium to one that hasn't even flown a paying passenger yet?

Firstly 77W is a 2005 airplane and secondly A350-1000 has been carrying passengers between LHR-DOH for a solid month.

Boeing can never beat Airbus in terms of noise control. I've had a lot of back-to-back Boeing to Airbus flights (including all current Boeing and Airbus widebodies) and the Boeings are simply awful in this respect.

Michael

Couldn't agree with you more. I travel a lot as well and I always feel better after a long flight on an Airbus. Domestically, because of the equipment our local airlines use, I flip between 738 and 319/320 all the time, often on the same day. Night and day, in Airbus' favor.

So, so true Chris.
On the A340s/A330s it's mostly because of the reduced cabin noise over the 777, so it's a fairly easy to explain my overall preference, but even the NB Airbuses are so much more comfortable than the Boeings...I cannot exactly pin-point the reason in this case (maybe it's a mix of several things? like better air quality, couple with more favourable cabin noise levels, and the flying qualities ("smoothness"??), the extra width...) but I find flying the A3XX much less tiring than riding the 737 for some reason....even a 4-5 hr journey in Y class I am able to handle so much better on an A320 rather than on a 738...
And, please folks, don't get me wrong...I love flying and LOVE all aeroplanes...Boeing, MDD, Airbus, Tupolev, Fokker... it's just that some are more comfortable than others!

I concur with the above poster that the offered ACJs are for the fleet of used airframes available.

zeke wrote:

Utter silence when the delta between the pig and 77W is half as much as the 77W and the A350-1000.

The A350-1000 will result in passenger 77Ws being retired early. It is a given.

Now compre in a world of A350s, 777Xs, 787s, and eventually 797s.

The 748I is doomed to an early retirement to. The question is how will the A388 do when both the 779 and A35K are in service? Since I see more profit per flight with the twins... I think about as well as the 744. It will hold on for a bit until mass retirements.

Let us not forget the GE9X introduces to widebodies:
1. CMC turbine blades
2. High Mach # compressor (even more agressive than the PW1100G).
3. More cooling systems (more precise control).
3. Variable cycle (better than the LEAP).

Plus the first folding wingtips (I believe most airframes launched after 2020 will have this feature).

So if you want someone to agree with you, I do. Widebody life is going to be shorter.

Next generation:
1. GFRP wings (not CFRP).
2. Far more 3D printed titanium. This technology will dramatically change next generation designs
3. Semi-organic designs thanks to new GFRP weaving tech and 3D printing (weigh less).
4. Partial BWB (I particularly like some smaller Airbus concepts I've seen). Folding wingtps are a required enabling technology as BWBs have far more wingspan for the same capacity.
5. Higher bypass GTFs. RR will enter this market.
6. Even higher Mach # compressors. We aren't where Whittle said we would be in the mid 1970s.
7. Extreamely more efficient low compressors thanks to foam metal technology.
8. Underside laminar flow wings. Today's wings are too conservative. Maybe a 7% drop in fuel burn. This technology requires higher aspect ratio wings (7% in addition to the benefits of the higher aspect ratio wing).

So this race is far from over.

Time for the customer launch of 777 P2F. Your passenger days are numbered. About when say 300 to 350 A350-1000 are in the fleet will be the tipping point.

Lightsaber

OldAeroGuy wrote:

Just to set the record straight, the first 777-300ER was delivered in April 2004 with EIS in May 2004.

So in 2 months, the EIS is 14 years ago. We should celebrate the huge production run! Just as we do for any widebodies that broke a thousand delivered.

Airbus knew they needed to improve the A340-600 to compete with the 777-300ER and launched the A340-600 Enhanced program, but it didn't catch on with customers (probably more because so many had moved to the 777-300ER than anything else), so Airbus launched the A350XWB-1000, which did catch on with customers.

Boeing knew they needed to improve the 777-300ER to compete with the A350-1000 and studied various options before launching the 777-9, which also has caught on with customers.

The A340-600 Enhanced was required to compete with the 777-300ER in terms of payload-range. Unfortunately, this made the A346E operating economics even more unfavorable compared to the 773ER. No wonder it didn't catch on with customers.

OldAeroGuy wrote:

The A340-600 Enhanced was required to compete with the 777-300ER in terms of payload-range. Unfortunately, this made the A346E operating economics even more unfavorable compared to the 773ER. No wonder it didn't catch on with customers.

The A346 enhanced was reengining the aircraft with engines similar to the then A350 mk1 and other improvements. I think you are thinking of the A346HGW, which was an unpopular option that I believe Airbus forced on later customers/builds as standard to get something out of what they spent on its development.

OldAeroGuy wrote:

The A340-600 Enhanced was required to compete with the 777-300ER in terms of payload-range. Unfortunately, this made the A346E operating economics even more unfavorable compared to the 773ER. No wonder it didn't catch on with customers.

I believe that was the A340-600 High Gross Weight option, of which four examples were taken by QR, which improved the general payload lift and range of the frame.

The A340-600 Enhanced was pushed by Airbus in late 2005 and was based on the A340-600HGW. It would have used a version of the Trent 1700 engines being developed for the original A350 ("Trent 1500") with the A350's Al-Li alloys used in the fuselage structure to lower the OEW and aerodynamic tweaks to the wings to reduce fuel burn (in conjunction with the new engines). It also would have adopted the A350's cabin fittings.

Chrisba320 wrote:

The A340-600 may have been the wrong aircraft at the wrong time but as a passenger I’d much rather fly on the “pig” than any 777. It is smooth, comfortable and spacious and the 2 + 4 + 2 configuration in Y is great. I’ve had a gazillion flights on the 777 and I’ve always found them noisy and uncomfortable compared to the 346. I know they are a dying breed but I love 4-holers and I go out of my way to fly them while I can. I prefer even the 343 to a 777.

The 777 is such a bland-looking plane...little character.

Stitch wrote:

OldAeroGuy wrote:

The A340-600 Enhanced was required to compete with the 777-300ER in terms of payload-range. Unfortunately, this made the A346E operating economics even more unfavorable compared to the 773ER. No wonder it didn't catch on with customers.

I believe that was the A340-600 High Gross Weight option, of which four examples were taken by QR, which improved the general payload lift and range of the frame.

The A340-600 Enhanced was pushed by Airbus in late 2005 and was based on the A340-600HGW. It would have used a version of the Trent 1700 engines being developed for the original A350 ("Trent 1500") with the A350's Al-Li alloys used in the fuselage structure to lower the OEW and aerodynamic tweaks to the wings to reduce fuel burn (in conjunction with the new engines). It also would have adopted the A350's cabin fittings.

Your correct, I was referring to the A340-600HGW. The A340-600Enchanced was never built.

The ACJ340 is really interesting given that most of the A340s that are VIP jets are the -200 and -500 which sold very little (although there are a few -300 corporate jets and one -600 corporate jet). I'm surprised it's still offered on the Airbus website, as the A330-200 Prestige effectively supplanted it once that MTOW reached 238t, and what market remains for a conversion will be taken out by the A330-900neo at 251t, which could also have a Prestige offering for potential 7500 nmi range. I expect the removal of the ACJ340 very soon with Airbus' corporate jet offerings being the ACJ321LR the ACJ330neo (based on the A339), and ACJ350 (based on the A350-900XWB ULR).

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The ACJ340 is really interesting given that most of the A340s that are VIP jets are the -200 and -500 which sold very little (although there are a few -300 corporate jets and one -600 corporate jet). I'm surprised it's still offered on the Airbus website, as the A330-200 Prestige effectively supplanted it once that MTOW reached 238t, and what market remains for a conversion will be taken out by the A330-900neo at 251t, which could also have a Prestige offering for potential 7500 nmi range. I expect the removal of the ACJ340 very soon with Airbus' corporate jet offerings being the ACJ321LR the ACJ330neo (based on the A339), and ACJ350 (based on the A350-900XWB ULR).

I respectfully disagree on the A340ACJ offer ending soon. Airbus owns too many examples not to try to sell them.

The A350ACJ will have so much sticker shock...
The A339ACJ has merit. If the cabin isn't heavy, the center tank could be loaded up for a long mission. I do agree on the A321ACJ doing well.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The ACJ340 is really interesting given that most of the A340s that are VIP jets are the -200 and -500 which sold very little (although there are a few -300 corporate jets and one -600 corporate jet). I'm surprised it's still offered on the Airbus website, as the A330-200 Prestige effectively supplanted it once that MTOW reached 238t, and what market remains for a conversion will be taken out by the A330-900neo at 251t, which could also have a Prestige offering for potential 7500 nmi range. I expect the removal of the ACJ340 very soon with Airbus' corporate jet offerings being the ACJ321LR the ACJ330neo (based on the A339), and ACJ350 (based on the A350-900XWB ULR).

I respectfully disagree on the A340ACJ offer ending soon. Airbus owns too many examples not to try to sell them.

The A350ACJ will have so much sticker shock...
The A339ACJ has merit. If the cabin isn't heavy, the center tank could be loaded up for a long mission. I do agree on the A321ACJ doing well.

Lightsaber

And defers the write offs.

Plus the 787/RR issue has generated revenue, and even for a couple to come out of retirement on an extended basis.

oldannyboy wrote:

Chrisba320 wrote:

caverunner17 wrote:

There's zero market for them. The new A339 251T can fly just as far as the 343 could for significantly less costs and the 346 was a pig compared to even the 777-300ER, much less the A350.

Once Airbus stopped building the 343, significant changes were made to remove those additional structures from the wing. It will never be built again.

The A340-600 may have been the wrong aircraft at the wrong time but as a passenger I’d much rather fly on the “pig” than any 777. It is smooth, comfortable and spacious and the 2 + 4 + 2 configuration in Y is great. I’ve had a gazillion flights on the 777 and I’ve always found them noisy and uncomfortable compared to the 346. I know they are a dying breed but I love 4-holers and I go out of my way to fly them while I can. I prefer even the 343 to a 777.

Same here. I LOVE any A340 (and A330), they are fantastic aircrafts to fly - smooth, quiet, spacious... so MUCH BETTER from a pax perspective than any 777.
As much as I love the looks of the mighty 777 I find far too noisy, especially at the back of the cabin. Turbulence ride is not so great either.

I find it puzzling that on an aviation enthusiasts' forum people continually bash the A340 lineup based on its supposed uncompetitive economics... maybe this is simply an accountants' forum after all??

yeah, i remember when Air Canada had the A340s. They are much better than the 777s now.

How much Airbus is selling the standard A340CJ ? Would be attractive over the 777E BBJ ?

UAEflyer wrote:

How much Airbus is selling the standard A340CJ ? Would be attractive over the 777E BBJ ?

Generally, yes. Fuel burn is less of an issue, hot/high performance is better, and if one engine gets into trouble, you're less restricted by it. Plus, four engines have more ramp presence, and rich people care about that, which is why they're buying 748is. Next step down though would be an A345.

Regarding airlines not liking the HGW, I thought these had LOWER OEW due to the laser beam welding, it was just too little, too late. Does someone have information that contradicts that?

I don't think that the Airbus 340 is that less fuel efficient than many of todays aircraft. I'm sure Airbus could have added more efficient more powerful and fuel efficient engines and made it a better aircraft if they wanted to.

Mortyman wrote:

I don't think that the Airbus 340 is that less fuel efficient than many of todays aircraft. I'm sure Airbus could have added more efficient more powerful and fuel efficient engines and made it a better aircraft if they wanted to.

The A340-200 and A340-300 were designed to use the IAE V2500 SuperFan, which was a high-bypass geared turbofan based on the core of the V2500 engine used in the A320 family. IAE later cancelled the engine due to various design issues and the A340 was modified to use the CFM56-3 engines it entered service with.

The A340 Enhanced would have replaced the Trent 500 with a bleed-air version of the Trent 1000 on the 787, however it appears there was no real interest from existing or potential customers so it never went beyond the concept stage.

Stitch wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

I don't think that the Airbus 340 is that less fuel efficient than many of todays aircraft. I'm sure Airbus could have added more efficient more powerful and fuel efficient engines and made it a better aircraft if they wanted to.

The A340-200 and A340-300 were designed to use the IAE V2500 SuperFan, which was a high-bypass geared turbofan based on the core of the V2500 engine used in the A320 family. IAE later cancelled the engine due to various design issues and the A340 was modified to use the CFM56-3 engines it entered service with.

The A340 Enhanced would have replaced the Trent 500 with a bleed-air version of the Trent 1000 on the 787, however it appears there was no real interest from existing or potential customers so it never went beyond the concept stage.

The A346 cost 8% to 9% more to fly than the 77W. It was maintenance as well as fuel. For some items, the twin needs 2 when the quad has 3+. A large engine doesn't cost much more to maintain than a medium engine.

The cost of four T1000 to compete against the 787-10 or 777X? That is insane and what the market expected. If a competitor launches a marginally better product, a competitor responds by:
1. Discounting.
2. Marginal performance improvement, e.g. wingtips treatment, lightening the airframe, incentivise an exclusive engine PIP (e.g., CFM-56-7 vs. CFM-56-5),
3. Launch a killer new model with all the new cost saving technology.

Efficiency is now reducing fuel burn about 1.25% per year.

For new aircraft:
1. Folding wingtips, drop fuel burn 3% to 4%. Best if combined with:
2. GFRP wings, the next generation of CFRP. Recall the 787 was designed with 15 year ago CFRP.
3. Laminar underside wings. a 3% to 4% improvement. Requires high aspect ratio wings (current designs need not apply, really requires #1).
4. CMC turbine. GE9x for the 777x launches this technology. Another 3% to 4%. More as the tech evolves.
5. Really high mach# compressors. The PW1100G started, but another 3% to 4% fuel burn reduction is waiting.
6. Fiber optic controls. We're really still putting in the weight of wire for signals? More in cutting maintenance bills and a few hundred kg of weight.
7. Design from day 1 for 3D printing and CFRP/GFRP weaving. Cost and weight savings.
8. Variable cycle engines.

Just a comment, when engines and airframe are optimized for each other, that cuts fuel burn more than just what is the best engine.

Aircraft have a long way to go. Over the last 15 years amazing new wing technology has been developed, it is time for it to enter commercial service. But it requires long thin wings and so I believe folding wings are required.

I'm talking far more advanced wings than the 777x. Those wings are grafted on to an existing design, so there were limits to what could be done.

I'm waiting for non-steel landing gear, but I think I have a long wait.

Airbus owns so many A340s, some will become ACJs. Some A339s will become ACJs. Only an ACJ or BBJ buyer cares about looks. Airlines hire MBAs and accountants to go after numbers!

Lightsaber

Mortyman wrote:

I don't think that the Airbus 340 is that less fuel efficient than many of todays aircraft.

What a weird thing to write! Why do you think this thing?

Everyone else thinks the A340 burns more fuel than the 777, it's only real competitor. Here is one source ... there are lots more.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 77-203391/

Well we should note that while the A340-500 and A340-600 had a not-insignificant fuel burn penalty compared to the 777-300ER, the A340-300 had similar fuel burn to the 777-200ER. What pushed the 777-200ER ahead was the greater passenger capacity (using Emirates as an example, the 777 seated 291 compared to 267 on the A340-300) and general superior range (though the A340-300 could have the advantage in certain situations due to it's superior engine-out performance from airfields located in hot climates or high altitudes).

kitplane01 wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

I don't think that the Airbus 340 is that less fuel efficient than many of todays aircraft.

What a weird thing to write! Why do you think this thing?

Everyone else thinks the A340 burns more fuel than the 777, it's only real competitor. Here is one source ... there are lots more.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 77-203391/

I wrote THAT much more. So I never said it was as fuel efficient as others.

FedEx747 wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

Chrisba320 wrote:

The A340-600 may have been the wrong aircraft at the wrong time but as a passenger I’d much rather fly on the “pig” than any 777. It is smooth, comfortable and spacious and the 2 + 4 + 2 configuration in Y is great. I’ve had a gazillion flights on the 777 and I’ve always found them noisy and uncomfortable compared to the 346. I know they are a dying breed but I love 4-holers and I go out of my way to fly them while I can. I prefer even the 343 to a 777.

Same here. I LOVE any A340 (and A330), they are fantastic aircrafts to fly - smooth, quiet, spacious... so MUCH BETTER from a pax perspective than any 777.
As much as I love the looks of the mighty 777 I find far too noisy, especially at the back of the cabin. Turbulence ride is not so great either.

I find it puzzling that on an aviation enthusiasts' forum people continually bash the A340 lineup based on its supposed uncompetitive economics... maybe this is simply an accountants' forum after all??

yeah, i remember when Air Canada had the A340s. They are much better than the 777s now.

Yeah, indeed...especially if you compare the AC 773 'SlaveShip' config, with very dense Y and the somewhat spacious layout the 343s had...not to mention the 8-abreast cabin and the quietness of the cabin... just wow. huge difference...Try fly 12 hours and the 773 and then compare to the 343...

hey all - long time reader first time writer here.
as an accountant I do have some questions, that maybe can be clarified by more learned technicians here. first of all - how can it be not good value for money to buy a used a345 or a346 (but also other versions, too) that's roughly 10 years old, has low cycles on airframe being a long haul airliner, instead of maintaining those 25 years old 763s that require more and more deep checks, interiors refurbishments? are those 767s really so much more fuel efficient even if engineered more than 30 years ago?
my thought is on charter airlines, like Condor, or Neos (this one recently introduced the 787) but also the majors, like Etihad - how can it be more economical to first buy some planes (a345 and 346s) then fly for maybe 1/3 of their life and then simply store or even scrap them to buy again some other planes? the delta between price of purchase of a brand new similar capacity 77W and the economy in fuel should be really positive, or it makes no sense... really a 77W on full capacity is capable of spare so much fuel compared to an a346?
I do enjoy reading this forum, hope not to have bored you too much (and not too much stupid questions)

oldannyboy wrote:

FedEx747 wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

Same here. I LOVE any A340 (and A330), they are fantastic aircrafts to fly - smooth, quiet, spacious... so MUCH BETTER from a pax perspective than any 777.
As much as I love the looks of the mighty 777 I find far too noisy, especially at the back of the cabin. Turbulence ride is not so great either.

I find it puzzling that on an aviation enthusiasts' forum people continually bash the A340 lineup based on its supposed uncompetitive economics... maybe this is simply an accountants' forum after all??

yeah, i remember when Air Canada had the A340s. They are much better than the 777s now.

Yeah, indeed...especially if you compare the AC 773 'SlaveShip' config, with very dense Y and the somewhat spacious layout the 343s had...not to mention the 8-abreast cabin and the quietness of the cabin... just wow. huge difference...Try fly 12 hours and the 773 and then compare to the 343...

Your last statement.......win! I almost need to be carried off in an ambulance (really...my lower back was all numb) when doing Air Canada B77W compared to A343. Oh well, 3-4-3 is the way to go these days on B77W. Once for me is enough.

Stitch wrote:

Well we should note that while the A340-500 and A340-600 had a not-insignificant fuel burn penalty compared to the 777-300ER, the A340-300 had similar fuel burn to the 777-200ER. What pushed the 777-200ER ahead was the greater passenger capacity (using Emirates as an example, the 777 seated 291 compared to 267 on the A340-300) and general superior range (though the A340-300 could have the advantage in certain situations due to it's superior engine-out performance from airfields located in hot climates or high altitudes).

The move from 9Y to 10Y on 777s certainly made a big difference to comparative economics, though what also killed the A340-300 was the constant improvements to the A330-300 which just got better and better!

If I was a billionaire, I'd get an A340-500 converted to be my private jet, a lovely looking plane!

FatCat wrote:

hey all - long time reader first time writer here.
as an accountant I do have some questions, that maybe can be clarified by more learned technicians here. first of all - how can it be not good value for money to buy a used a345 or a346 (but also other versions, too) that's roughly 10 years old, has low cycles on airframe being a long haul airliner, instead of maintaining those 25 years old 763s that require more and more deep checks, interiors refurbishments? are those 767s really so much more fuel efficient even if engineered more than 30 years ago?
my thought is on charter airlines, like Condor, or Neos (this one recently introduced the 787) but also the majors, like Etihad - how can it be more economical to first buy some planes (a345 and 346s) then fly for maybe 1/3 of their life and then simply store or even scrap them to buy again some other planes? the delta between price of purchase of a brand new similar capacity 77W and the economy in fuel should be really positive, or it makes no sense... really a 77W on full capacity is capable of spare so much fuel compared to an a346?
I do enjoy reading this forum, hope not to have bored you too much (and not too much stupid questions)

Welcome. As mentioned, A345 and A346 had very high operating costs. Your monthly cost is the sum of your ownership expense (lease payment), fuel, labor and maintenance. The sum of these is greater for A345 and A346 even when the lease payment is zero. That is when you see jets actively retired from airline duty.

What makes VIP operations special is they only fly 1-2 hours per day, versus 12-13 hours per day for major airline widebodies (utilization hours). Notice the airline fuel budget is 5-10x greater, and hence the expense delta is also 5-10x greater for an airline versus a VIP customer.

For VIP or occasional military use, an older technology jet with higher fuel burn can be optimal. The equalizing factor here is the lease rates for aircraft. Flexible lease rates should make the return on capital equal across all parts of aviation, in theory.

Oh, I forgot your question was about 767s. The 767 carries fewer people but has a lower trip cots than an A340. For a static group of 200 customers, the 767 will be way more profitable, enough to justify maintaining it. It is just smaller and burns fewer gallons. For a group of 270 customers, the A330 will beat the A340 in profitability. So the A340 really has no clear job anymore.

thanks flighty for the explanation.
but still I'm not satisfied. I do not know how much a used A345 costs but let's say € 10M. A used A333 in same conditions will surely cost more because its higher demand on the market. Let's say € 15M. Let's say you are buying and not leasing it - A330s will be cheaper to lease, because of higher value on the market btw. A345 can seat more people than an A333, has a longer range, and a higher MTOW (if not, please correct me - I don't have the numers on hand). It will be more expensive to overhaul, because of the 4 engines, but you may earn more by seating more people and lifting more cargo... yet companies are scrapping and storing them.
@Airbus A6 we have the same dreams ahaha

FatCat wrote:

thanks flighty for the explanation.
but still I'm not satisfied. I do not know how much a used A345 costs but let's say € 10M. A used A333 in same conditions will surely cost more because its higher demand on the market. Let's say € 15M. Let's say you are buying and not leasing it - A330s will be cheaper to lease, because of higher value on the market btw. A345 can seat more people than an A333, has a longer range, and a higher MTOW (if not, please correct me - I don't have the numers on hand). It will be more expensive to overhaul, because of the 4 engines, but you may earn more by seating more people and lifting more cargo... yet companies are scrapping and storing them.
@Airbus A6 we have the same dreams ahaha

The answer is the A345 is valued at 10 million because it is so expensive to run in comparison to the A333 for any job at which they might compete. The A345 is basically worth its part-out cost. It exited from commercial service because its value there is LOWER than its part out value.

Just as a wild guess to help - an A345 probably burns ~2,400 gallons per hour x 12 hours x 30 days in a month, that's 864,000 gallons a month, $2m a month in fuel basically. So it's not, like, a "small" issue; it is a business plan crusher. And this number is probably way low!

Or, if you are an eccentric billionaire, then fuel burn (at 1-2 hours per day annualized) is not a huge deal, and the A345 is a nice used plane for you. But you will need to employ a lot of people and it is a real production to do that, versus just flying netjets.

FatCat wrote:

I do not know how much a used A345 costs but let's say € 10M. A used A333 in same conditions will surely cost more because its higher demand on the market. Let's say € 15M. Let's say you are buying and not leasing it - A330s will be cheaper to lease, because of higher value on the market btw. A345 can seat more people than an A333, has a longer range, and a higher MTOW (if not, please correct me - I don't have the numers on hand). It will be more expensive to overhaul, because of the 4 engines, but you may earn more by seating more people and lifting more cargo... yet companies are scrapping and storing them.

Even though a.net tends to focus on it (more as a point to belittle the competition than anything else) purchase price is probably one of the least-important factors to an airline when they evaluate a wide-body airframe. At a minimum, you're looking at a 10 year operating life (if leasing) and you could reasonably see 20 years if not more. You also need to match the airframe to the mission. If your average stage length is 8-10 hours, an airframe designed for 18-20 is going to be far less optimal due to the extra structural weight it will carry to be able to perform that mission. And what kind of airline are you? A charter airline that is mostly Economy Class passengers? Or do you have three or even four classes of service with heavy First Class and Business Class suites?

You may save tens of millions on the purchase of an A340-500 versus an A330-300E of similar age, but the A340-500 weighs substantially more in order to support it's significantly higher operating weights necessary to tank all the fuel for a 16+ hour mission. So fuel burn can be upwards of one-third higher on the A340-500 which at current Spot prices for Jet-A is about $1350 an hour more to operate. So on a 10 hour mission (usual stage length for an A330-300), your fuel bill will be $13,500 higher. Now assume you operate that flight every day - your annual fuel bill will be almost $5 million higher. Over the 10-20 year operating life of the airframe, the fuel bill alone will more than wipe out your initial capital savings. And if fuel prices rise, that delta shrinks even faster.

And while an A340-500 is about 9% larger in terms of cabin floor area, it can't seat anymore passengers than an A330-300 due to them both having the same standard 375 seat Exit Limit - in fact, it might seat up to 65 people less because the A330-300 can be fitted with larger Exit Doors, allowing up to 440 people to be seated. So an A340-500 might not generate any more revenue from seating then an A330-300 and if you operate in an all-Economy model, it will generate less.

Then there is the higher maintenance costs for the airframe and engines. Higher navigation and landing fees from the higher operating weights an A340-500 has (though you can save on those somewhat by re-certifying at less than maximum values if you do not need all of the performance). It all adds up and eventually the Total Cost of Ownership over a year between the A330 and A340 divided by the revenue generated favors the A330 by a sufficient enough margin that the higher capital costs are more than zeroed-out.

Stitch wrote:

FatCat wrote:

I do not know how much a used A345 costs but let's say € 10M. A used A333 in same conditions will surely cost more because its higher demand on the market. Let's say € 15M. Let's say you are buying and not leasing it - A330s will be cheaper to lease, because of higher value on the market btw. A345 can seat more people than an A333, has a longer range, and a higher MTOW (if not, please correct me - I don't have the numers on hand). It will be more expensive to overhaul, because of the 4 engines, but you may earn more by seating more people and lifting more cargo... yet companies are scrapping and storing them.

Even though a.net tends to focus on it (more as a point to belittle the competition than anything else) purchase price is probably one of the least-important factors to an airline when they evaluate a wide-body airframe. At a minimum, you're looking at a 10 year operating life (if leasing) and you could reasonably see 20 years if not more. You also need to match the airframe to the mission. If your average stage length is 8-10 hours, an airframe designed for 18-20 is going to be far less optimal due to the extra structural weight it will carry to be able to perform that mission. And what kind of airline are you? A charter airline that is mostly Economy Class passengers? Or do you have three or even four classes of service with heavy First Class and Business Class suites?

You may save tens of millions on the purchase of an A340-500 versus an A330-300E of similar age, but the A340-500 weighs substantially more in order to support it's significantly higher operating weights necessary to tank all the fuel for a 16+ hour mission. So fuel burn can be upwards of one-third higher on the A340-500 which at current Spot prices for Jet-A is about $1350 an hour more to operate. So on a 10 hour mission (usual stage length for an A330-300), your fuel bill will be $13,500 higher. Now assume you operate that flight every day - your annual fuel bill will be almost $5 million higher. Over the 10-20 year operating life of the airframe, the fuel bill alone will more than wipe out your initial capital savings. And if fuel prices rise, that delta shrinks even faster.

And while an A340-500 is about 9% larger in terms of cabin floor area, it can't seat anymore passengers than an A330-300 due to them both having the same standard 375 seat Exit Limit - in fact, it might seat up to 65 people less because the A330-300 can be fitted with larger Exit Doors, allowing up to 440 people to be seated. So an A340-500 might not generate any more revenue from seating then an A330-300 and if you operate in an all-Economy model, it will generate less.

Then there is the higher maintenance costs for the airframe and engines. Higher navigation and landing fees from the higher operating weights an A340-500 has (though you can save on those somewhat by re-certifying at less than maximum values if you do not need all of the performance). It all adds up and eventually the Total Cost of Ownership over a year between the A330 and A340 divided by the revenue generated favors the A330 by a sufficient enough margin that the higher capital costs are more than zeroed-out.

Stitch, nice answer.

Let us break it down another way.
Cost of fuel 35% to 50% of flying cost in high utilization.
Cost to lease the plane:. 12% to 15%.
Maintenance 12% to 15% (including engines).
The rest is crew, catering, ATC fees, and landing fees. Much of the fees are weight based which hurts the A345/6.

Incurring a 30% spike in fuel and maintenance is devistating to the business case.

FatCat:
The A346 costs 8% to 9% more to fly than a 77W. Now that cheap off lease 77Ws are becoming available, why would anyone buy an A346?

The reality is, an A359 is an excellent A345 replacement. The A350-1000 is an excellent A346 replacement. So is a 77W, or 779.

But one is also competing versus new build 788s, 788s, and 787-10s.

While an A359 might cost $125 million, that isn't as much a monthly lease payment as the fuel and maintenance savings. The plane will be more reliable too (fewer hotel bills for passengers).

Rumors are Boeing has cut 787 production costs and is selling in the $115 million price for 789s and not much more for 787-10.

This is why 77W sales are collapsing and a redone 779 is required (new wing, new engines).

The variable cost of flying is staggering. The used 777-300ERs are only being picked up by Russian charter operations. That is a group notorious for penny pinching. If they are getting 77Ws cheap, even in limited use (say 6 hours per day averaged over a year), they would save $1.5m to $2.0m USD per year over an A346.

This is why you cannot give away the planes to an airline. For VIP use.. It is the purchase price that will matter due to Stich's and already noted low utilization.

Lightsaber

Fellas, thanks! It's nice to read so many good answers.

So very sadly we will see A346s being retired very soon. I have to book my next long flight soon and with LH or I will never have the possibility to fly on an A346.

We stated that as a liner those planes have no future.
But as a cargo conversion? We see everyday old ladies flying regular services, like 40 years old DC/MD-10s and maybe some DC-8 too. Those planes are really cheap to operate (I suppose) thanks to the great availability of spare parts.
May the A346s have a future as a cargo plane?