A340-600
 

Can anyone tell me how the A346 is doing now its been in service for couple of years? Specifically how does block fuel and block time compare to a) original estimates and b) to B744. Plus summary of operational pros and cons. All input v welcome.

Thanks

Torque

I think there is a thread around here that says that Singapore or somebody is really unhappy with what they projected for fuel burn and what they got, but do not know for sure.

yea - Singapore traded in their A340 for 777's - go figure ..... couldn't be a fuel burn issue ..

SQ traded in A343's for 772's, Boeing bought 12 A343's from SQ. The remaining 343's have been procured by EK.

The SQ 343's were very heavy operating weight due to a SQ infllight entainment system. Something like an additional 8t from memory.

Z

why would Boeing "buy" A340's from SQ ?

Trade In's, pretty common for both Airbus and Boeing.

used2flyboeing

To establish the aircraft type with a leading operator in Asia for other airlines in the region to follow suit. Other airlines in Asia look to SQ and CX for the purchasing decisions and a lot of them follow suit. Hence its good business to get a good established base in these markets, even if you have to do it at a discount.

Should have made it more clear in my previous post, EK purchased the A343's from Boeing, as they could not get enough from Airbus or elsewhere in the market.

Z

Interesting - but we still would like to know how the A340-600 is doing as per the original post........please!

to my knowledge the A340 - 600 hasn't been in commercial sevice for a couple of years..not even a year i think????

I dont tink you are correct on the "getting A340as from Boeing because AIRBUS is low on them" - the world is awash right now in A340-200 & 300's - and Boein airplanes for that matter, AIRBUS as a bucnh of them in the lease fleet - Ive seen the whitetails at Luftansa in Berlin & , Tiegel Hamburg .... with an inch of dust on them to boot ..

used2flyboeing,

I was aware of 4 A343's in Germany that were available, D-ASIB,D-ASIC,D-AGBM, and D-AJGP. All these aircraft are ex-SQ, and to be leased to EK from Boeing.

I was aware of a privatly owned A340 in germany, painted all white that did not moved for a while, not sure what its up to these days.

A quick look at Speednews shows only two A340's available worldwide. One of them is with Virgin (a 343), the other Lufthansa (a 342).

Torquelink

I think you will find the first A346 to enter service was G-VSHY (SN 383) on July-26, 2002 with Virgin Atlantic. My understanding is they are looked at as a 747 classic replacement, not a 744 replacement. Have not heard of complaints like Airbus had with the early 342&343's. I know some operators getter better economics from their 743's than their 744's, and are investing in them to give them a partial EFIS upgrade to extend their life.

Torquelink,
a friend works with CX, and apparently the A346 consumes about 20% to a third less fuel on their routes to LAX than the ol` lady (different flight on same day, comparable pax and freighter loads).

Zeke,
what about the three ex-Khalifa AW A343s that are currently with Boeing...?

J.V.

A346 economics
 

Not only does it use 20% less fuel than a 744, but it has double the underbelly cargo capacity and the economics of that advantage must be huge - carries slightly less pax though.

I heard from a couple of CX captains that the airline was not at all happy with the A340-600. That was about six months ago and could have been just teething problems, does anyone know if there has been an improvement?

The first 2 -600s delivered to CX are 2.5tonnes heavier than spec but the 3rd has had 1.25tonnes of metal from each wing!

The first 2 have not performed as CX would have liked. They are burning approx 4% more fuel than Airbus specifications.

The word is that CX arent happy that the -600 is not perfoming to spec (not surprises there) but whether it is still profitable enough, I have no idea.

The freight load is larger than the 744 which Im sure is keeping the bean counters very happy.

The CX fit is only 268 passengers (6F, 60J, 200Y) so front end pax numbers are required to keep the margins up.

The 3 x A340-600s are on lease from ILFC (3 years I think).

--------------------------

Dont know how VS are finding her but as a launch customer there maybe significant kick-backs. No doubt she is better than the A342 they were using.

A340-600
 

Felix,

What A342, Virgin have only operated -300 and 600's.

Thanks to all for your input. Note that both Cathay and Virgin operate their A346s with some 20% - 30% less seats than their -400s so I guess fuel burn per seat is roughly the same - albeit that the 346 has greater cargo capacity.

VS are quite happy with the -600s thank you. Some teething problems, as to be expected with a new type, but no show-stoppers so far. VS fit is 315 seats; as mentioned elsewhere cargo capacity is hugely more than 744 - the record so far, (that I'm aware of) is 38t - out of JNB, to boot.

Have not yet bothered to work out seat cost per mile, I'm not that bored, (or sad :) ) but an engineer told me the other day that it comes in well below the 744. Don't know how much he knows!

Operationally, in round numbers it cruises at .83, compared to the 343's .82, so is slightly faster than the 343 but slower than the 744. Fuel burns on the CLPs have been pretty accurate right from the start, (execpt at low level ie the last 200 miles to EWR!!), so I would assume that it is performing as promised.

As mentioned above, VS has never operated 342s, and the first 346 was delivered a little over 12 months ago - I think it was August last year, but my memory isn't so good any more! Sigh :)

Hope that helps.

Felix - AIRBUS is notorious about missing weight & performance guarantees - the A340 initially missed its performance guaranees by such a wide marin that Airbus initiated its "Performance Improvemen Program" -aka PIP which comprised a "breast-plate" scab on the bottom of the wings etc. to improve aero. The A340 has a poor airconditioning system - Ive been on several SAS A340s where the cabins were instrumented with data recorders to record the strata in the cabin. that being said, AIRBUS is a great company & if it wasnt for them, weed be riding on 747-400s with condensation water sloshing about in the stowbins in front of door I .

re: weight and performance guarantees
 

Don't forget the MD-11 as well in these categories.

A346 Economics
 

THISKIWICANFLY


<Not only does it use 20% less fuel than a 744, but it has double the underbelly cargo capacity and the economics of that advantage must be huge - carries slightly less pax though.>

Actually, if you use the same passenger density for the 744 as Airbus does for the A346, you get 480 pax in a 744 vs 380 pax in an A346. ( 26% more pax in a 744)
For cargo, the A346 has a volume of about 207 cu m vs 182 cu m in the 744. (14% more cu m in an A346, far from the 50% more you're claiming)
IOW, the 744 carries 26% more passengers & 14% less cargo.
Knowing that passengers bring in much more revenue than cargo, a 744 with a full load of pax will be more profitable than an A346 with a full load of pax, despite the latter's lower fuel burn isn't it ?

SLuca

My figures 744/346
Single class 660/475
Two class 496/440
Three class 412/380

As the 330/340 have less seats across the aircraft, they are less sensitive to increasing or decreasing the seat pitch than on a 744.

Fuel/pax/nm 0.050/0.046 (lower better)

Cannot agree with you over the cargo volume either, the 346 does offer more cargo per head.

I do not see the 346 as a 744 replacement, just a 743 replacement. I do see it as a replacement for a 744 where the sectors are not optimal for the 744, ie the 744 has lower passenger load factor for a specific city to city pair.

Whats the use of 600 seats if you cannot sell them for the frequency offered, except in japan on a domestic run.

Many airlines on long haul will take seats out in favour of cargo and fuel as the cargo will pay better than pax, requires no cabin crew, does not need food, does not need waste storage.

Z

Zeke
 

I don't think the numbers you provided for pax capacity are meaningful : you have to make the capacity comparison using similar density ( square area per pax) When you do so, you get about 25% more passengers in a 744 than an A346.
You can check my numbers by looking at Airbus & Boeing's website. Note than for the A346 three classes config., Airbus uses only 12 FC seats & 54 BC seats whereas Boeing uses 23 FC seats & 78 BC seats. That's why you have to use a common measure such as square area per pax since it is roughly what drives the revenue generated per pax in each class.

For cargo capacity, I did not use the relative volume per pax but the total cargo volume instead. Inevitably, since the 744 has an upper deck & since the cargo volume is roughly driven by the lenght of the aircraft, it will have less cargo volume per pax than a single deck plane such as the 773 or the A346.
Interestingly, the A380 has even less total cargo capacity than the 744, & the ratio cargo volume/pax is awfully low.
IMO, Airbus should consider offering an optional flying trailer to offset the A380 lack of cargo space.

Optional equipment
 

Or a used 744.;)

used2flyboeing:

A significant reason for Airbus' PIP for the A340 was due to IAE's failure to provide an engine (the IAE 2500) capable of producing the required design thrust. Hence the switch to the CFM-56 series. Incidently, the original A340 didn't have winglets, and they were added as part of the PIP in addition to the engine upgrade to meet performance guarantees.

ROTORNUT


How about supplying some Air Transat A330s instead ?

- along with some very experienced AT pilots as well?