rapoc
Final Assembly Line stage 1
...
Posts: 235
|
Post by rapoc on Feb 25, 2013 23:52:09 GMT 1
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Feb 26, 2013 9:09:27 GMT 1
|
|
noistar
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 388
|
Post by noistar on Feb 27, 2013 10:58:43 GMT 1
Hi again Another question I'm afraid. Why wasn't the A340 a success? On the surface it would appear to be a serious competitor to an old 4-engined aircraft design. Bearing in mind modern design technology and an emphasis on fuel efficiency, why didn't the A340 wipe the floor with B747s? A year ago the Thai airways B747s were receiving a long overdue modernization. During this time, Thai re-instated their A340s on the BKK-LHR route. I was looking forward to flying on my 1st A340, but unfortunately the B747s came back a week before my journey So the A340s were up to the task of being used on B747 routes, but Thai prefer to use an old, presumably inefficient, aircraft. I just don't understand why airlines are trying to offload A340s.
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Feb 27, 2013 11:28:12 GMT 1
Big twins are more fuel efficient on most routes. This is why the A350-family has only two engines. Especially the Boeing 777-300ER became a serious A340-competitor. Plus the improved A330-300 took over a lot of quad routes.
At the very top and on very long routes there is still room for four-engined aircraft.
|
|
noistar
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 388
|
Post by noistar on Feb 27, 2013 13:41:43 GMT 1
I can see why the 'big twins' have the advantages, but I just can't understand why a B747 is apparently 'better' than an A340. Twins against 4-engines I can understand. New 4-engine against old I can't. The rationale behind a modern 4-engine must have been good. If the world loves jumbos, it ought to love a fuel efficient jumbo. I suppose there is always an exception to 1+1=2 Why spend money revamping the old, when the new are lying idle on the apron at BKK? It's not as if B747 operators don't have Airbus's. My example of Thai airways is a good one. Where I live in Chiang Mai, the majority of flights are A320, A300 or A330. There is also a 'baby jumbo' (as I call it as it is so small).
|
|
someone
in service - 1 year
Posts: 3,218
|
Post by someone on Apr 12, 2013 7:34:14 GMT 1
Hello. MSN925 is now listed as PH-AON for KLM. Has anybody infos about this plane and if it is really for KLM? Thanks!! Seems like they now have taken delivery of this former MRTT demo model www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Airbus/A330/925,PH-AON-KLM-Royal-Dutch-Airlines.php
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Apr 12, 2013 8:38:04 GMT 1
Hi again Another question I'm afraid. Why wasn't the A340 a success? Airbus launched two different programs : - The A330/A340-200 -300 program can be regarded as very successful, the commonality between a twin and a quad bringing many sales, even if the A330 was by far the better seller. But the size of the aircraft did not make the program a direct competitor to the B747. - The A340-500/-600 program was very ambitious (the aircraft was bigger), but it did not succeed for three major reasons. . The change in ETOPS rules marginalised quads by suppressing their advantages. . The increase in oil prices was an additional advantage for twins. . Boeing launched the B777-300ER which was an overwhelming competitor.
|
|
starbucks
Roll Out Flight Line in Toulouse
Posts: 521
|
Post by starbucks on Apr 12, 2013 10:10:01 GMT 1
Hello. MSN925 is now listed as PH-AON for KLM. Has anybody infos about this plane and if it is really for KLM? Thanks!! Seems like they now have taken delivery of this former MRTT demo model www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Airbus/A330/925,PH-AON-KLM-Royal-Dutch-Airlines.php Correct, delivery flight is scheduled for 1600lt today (expected 1700 at AMS)
|
|
noistar
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 388
|
Post by noistar on Apr 12, 2013 11:41:01 GMT 1
Hi again Another question I'm afraid. Why wasn't the A340 a success? Airbus launched two different programs : - The A330/A340-200 -300 program can be regarded as very successful, the commonality between a twin and a quad bringing many sales, even if the A330 was by far the better seller. But the size of the aircraft did not make the program a direct competitor to the B747. - The A340-500/-600 program was very ambitious (the aircraft was bigger), but it did not succeed for three major reasons. . The change in ETOPS rules marginalised quads by suppressing their advantages. . The increase in oil prices was an additional advantage for twins. . Boeing launched the B777-300 which was an overwhelming competitor. With the A340 being a lean, mean, modern beast, it just seems strange that the B747 was considered preferable, bearing in mind all the twin/quad arguments are the same for each. The A340 ought to have been a B747 beater, but airlines seem to have written-off the A340 in favour of a less efficient older design.
|
|
someone
in service - 1 year
Posts: 3,218
|
Post by someone on Apr 12, 2013 13:22:38 GMT 1
With the A340 being a lean, mean, modern beast, it just seems strange that the B747 was considered preferable, bearing in mind all the twin/quad arguments are the same for each. The A340 ought to have been a B747 beater, but airlines seem to have written-off the A340 in favour of a less efficient older design. It wasn't the 747 that "killed" the A340, it was the 777-300ER from the top and the improvement for the A330, that divided the potential A340 markets between eachother
|
|