The unloved A340
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2000
Aviation Qualifications: SLF
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 312
From: UK and Italy
The unloved A340
Aircraft manufacturers pay attention to what their customers say. Lufthansa and some eastern Asian airlines said they wanted a four-engined jet. Hence the A340. It arrived just in time for fuel prices to surge, and ETOPS restrictions to be relaxed. Nonetheless, it sold reasonable well. Lufthansa still flies it.
Have you flown in the A340? Is it really any different in the cabin from the A330?
The A 340 is an Airbus with an unblemished record, no fatalities.
Have you flown in the A340? Is it really any different in the cabin from the A330?
The A 340 is an Airbus with an unblemished record, no fatalities.
Joined: Jan 2001
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 302
From: Clarty Waters, UK
Joined: Mar 2006
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 398
Likes: 152
From: Western Europe
Joined: Jan 2024
Posts: 153
Likes: 90
From: Finland
I flew in both 330 and 340 from the same carrier. Maybe there was subtle variation in take off and climb performance and engine sound, but that’s only noticable by someone really looking for difference. The actual pax-experience was identical. One other thing to note was the outer engine pod pitch up during take off which looked remarkable.
Joined: Jan 2001
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 302
From: Clarty Waters, UK
In fact how many aviation related deaths can be attributed solely to the aircraft type? It's normally a combination of factors, particularly how the aircraft is operated,that kills people, not the aircraft type.
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 158
Likes: 10
From: Farnborough Hants
I wouldn't. It crashed and burned. It's arguably just a combination of good fortune and an efficient evacuation that prevented fatalities, and that's not unique to the A340.
In fact how many aviation related deaths can be attributed solely to the aircraft type? It's normally a combination of factors, particularly how the aircraft is operated,that kills people, not the aircraft type.
In fact how many aviation related deaths can be attributed solely to the aircraft type? It's normally a combination of factors, particularly how the aircraft is operated,that kills people, not the aircraft type.
Joined: Jan 2025
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 639
Likes: 776
From: New Zealand
Far fewer A340s were built than A330s, and they do/did fewer cycles per day. The relatively good accident record is no surprise, though they have still had issues (one landing gear stuck up at Heathrow, one gear collapse in Brussels).
Most of the crashes of A330s (and even A320s, arguably) seem no less likely to have happened on an A340. E.g. AF447.
Paxing All Over The World
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,841
Likes: 328
From: Hertfordshire, UK.
I had a fair number of rides on the 340-300 + 600, in Y and PE. Very pleasant all round and sad to see them go. The only bad point of the -600 was if you were at the back of Y. The 'stretch' meant that it could waggle. It was generally imperceptible but if you looked out for it, then a gentle movement was discernable. If I recall correctly, after early operations, there were some adjustments to reduce this in the cruise.
The VS -600, had the PE cabin right over the wing box and so it was beautifully stable.
The VS -600, had the PE cabin right over the wing box and so it was beautifully stable.
Joined: Jul 2010
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,775
Likes: 277
From: Asia
I liked the standard 2-4-2 seating configuration with the couples seats and lower chance of getting a middle seat. These days, only Iranian airlines are interested in acquiring the type as they aren't bothered about fuel consumption and need range because sanctions limit their options to refuel outside of Iran.
Joined: Jun 2007
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 1,883
Likes: 499
From: Beyond the Blue Horizon
I always quite liked the A340 and was on a LH one at the end of last year. It’s comforting to have 4 engines and it apparently has a great wing from those who sit in the very front seats, so when at height flys really well.
I did one ULH with SQ in one and also attained my highest altitude in a commercial jet inbound to Dubai from Phuket on one of the last EK ones at circa 42000ft and we were 1hr 20min early with DXB deserted as an overnight flight. Besides which it’s like an updated 707 so what’s not to like !
Cheers
Mr Mac
I did one ULH with SQ in one and also attained my highest altitude in a commercial jet inbound to Dubai from Phuket on one of the last EK ones at circa 42000ft and we were 1hr 20min early with DXB deserted as an overnight flight. Besides which it’s like an updated 707 so what’s not to like !
Cheers
Mr Mac
Paxing All Over The World
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,841
Likes: 328
From: Hertfordshire, UK.
I think the 340 was the right aircraft at the wrong time. It was sensible to plan a long range machine but the speed with which ETOPS progressed could not have been know at the time the project was agreed. I recall the captain of a -600 telling me how fabulous the wings were, "The big change when moving to the 340, is that it takes longer to slow down than others, because the wing is so good."
In my telecomms career I saw something similar with a particular large PABX as used in the late 80s and into the 90s. By the distinguished company with a great track record had it ready - its technology was out of date and they never recouped their investment. Not unlike the 380.
In my telecomms career I saw something similar with a particular large PABX as used in the late 80s and into the 90s. By the distinguished company with a great track record had it ready - its technology was out of date and they never recouped their investment. Not unlike the 380.