View Full Version : A340-600
skyhighbird
22nd Jul 2009, 14:04
The CX website has no mention of any A340-600s. Yet there are pictures on google with CX operating A340-600s.
What has happened to them!
spannersatcx
22nd Jul 2009, 14:14
They have been returned from whence they came.:eek:
skyhighbird
22nd Jul 2009, 14:44
I thought as much.
So I did a quick search on google thinking it would be a leading news title in an aviation magazine but nada.
Anyone know why they were returned? how many etc..
freightdog188
23rd Jul 2009, 03:21
was not a big deal at all ... cx had 3, I think, and the lease has not been renewed by cx so they went back to the leasing company (ILFC?) who actually owns them. It seems they have been sitting around CLK in Hainan Airlines colours for a long time, coz Hainan didn't want to take delivery amidst the downturn and so, once a month on each scheduled delivery day they found one or two new technical item that needs to be fixed before they can take them.
Sqwak7700
23rd Jul 2009, 05:33
They are now flying, I did see one of them in Pudong a while back.
CH-Aviation - Airline News, Fleet Lists & More (http://www.ch-aviation.ch/aircraft.php?search=set&airline=HU&al_op=1)
just curious... why did Cathay not want them any more ????
is there a problem with the 600 or are they some sort of lepers in the Airbus family ???
On a HKG-JFK sector it burnt 10 tons more fuel and carried 10 tons less load than the 300er trippler, hence exit stage left. Sad, had a nice bunk.
flyhardmo
31st Jul 2009, 14:58
Sad, had a nice bunk.
So does the 777 :ok:
nitpicker330
1st Aug 2009, 02:49
I forget the actual figures but 3 600's used up something like 30% of the whole fleet maintenance budget. They were early build 600's and basically a pain in the ass. CX had huge problems maintaining them. Not to mention the lack of payload v the ER.
I turned out that only 3 600's in the fleet wasn't financially viable long term.
Bye bye 600's.................................thank goodness:}
badairsucker
1st Aug 2009, 06:17
Was it the same muppet who was responsible for the 340-600 who was given a go on the fuel hedging.
nitpicker330
1st Aug 2009, 11:22
probably, and the same muppit that designed the new Olympic business class. Oh ahang on...............they sacked her didn't they!!
Not sacked, she was transfered to cargo, something about leaising with other carriers over pricing, then onto the fuel hedging team. I hear she's going to replace Nic running flight ops soon.
stillalbatross
2nd Aug 2009, 22:19
Was a nice machine to fly and had a bunk you could stand up in, no standing in the stairwell to put your shirt on. Plus it had 4 engines for going over the pole. Very much doubt it sucked up 30% of the airbus fleet operating budget as they were proven reliable in the latter stages of us having them.
Captain Dart
19th Oct 2009, 20:44
... and the takeoff out of Johannesburg was a lot less nail-biting than that of the A340-300.
flyingkiwi
20th Oct 2009, 14:19
You have to give it some respect, it was the nicest of the buses to fly, it landed just as nicely as the -300er, in fact my stike rate was far higher on the -600, it was the first aircraft to be able to do NYC direct year round, yes it burnt more fuel than the ER on the trip but it didnt have to off load baggage and pax come a hot day in NYC or YYZ. The worst loss is that it was the best aircraft out of them all for JNB, year round it could lift more than a 744 not mater what the OAT. Having done Joburgs in both -600 and the ER i have to say the ER takes less ground to get airborn albiet with significantly reduced payload but if i were to lose one at V1 i would want to be in the -600 any day.
fatbus
20th Oct 2009, 14:44
Most pilots I know that have flown the 345 just loved it,who cars about gas burn, I flew fighters and never cared about the amount of fuel burned
AEUENG
30th Oct 2009, 18:19
Says the man from the UAE who happen to be sitting on a vast oil reserve!! The rest of the world is a little more concerned about the cost of fuel and conserving it's usage to try and maximise operating profits......oh and to protect the environment of course!:}
stillalbatross
5th Nov 2009, 10:10
Sad, had a nice bunk.
So does the 777
If you are 4 ft tall.....................
flyingkiwi
5th Nov 2009, 10:25
agree,. prefer the -600 bunk, shame about the ladder though
nitpicker330
5th Nov 2009, 10:56
If you are 4 ft tall.....................
so you sleep or watch tv standing up do you?
the 777 is the best a/c in the air by far...................including the crew rest facilities.............
aw geezus. Not another A vs B thread
You are right. Lets end it here!
Boeing is the best.
fatbus
6th Nov 2009, 07:15
My point was from a pilots perspective a great airplane to fly . Its the company that needs to worry about the economics.
StallBoy
9th Nov 2009, 10:54
We didn't need a bunk in the L1011's:=
and soon 3 man ULH. Before you know it 2 man ULH, then: cx can sell the bunk space as well, maybe as a super 1st class, mile high club or something :O
cx can sell the bunk space as well, maybe as a super 1st class, mile high club or something
Or just give it away for free again :E
Passengers allegedly had sex in crew rest area on Cathay Pacific flight | Travel News | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,28318,25357597-5014090,00.html)