Future of the Airbus A340

[HalcyonDays]

......The entire fleet never generated enough revenue to pay for one aircraft.

I don't think that's remotely true for one minute. I think you're confusing revenue and profit.

[DAL767-400ER]

So BA and AF kept them around for over 30 years for prestige and amusement? I find that a little hard to believe.

You don't have to believe it, but prestige is pretty much the only reason.

[Spad13]

So BA and AF kept them around for over 30 years for prestige and amusement? I find that a little hard to believe.

No, not amusement.

[cja]

I think that you will find that BA made a lot of money from Concorde hence they wanted to keep her airborne. Unforunately Air France put paid to that but lets not go there.

[LH-B744]

When you operate into Buwa-Buwa in Durkadurkistan on a regular basis, who have a nice runway full of dirt and gravel, four engines might be of advantage [...]

Buwa-Buwa.. what was yet the ICAO-Code for this nice airport? Maybe Vishal did not start the topic to read something about that..
The A340 has not that mind-blowing amount of thrust, thats what I heard, although it has 4 engines. MTOW of 600,000 lbs and more, not a good situation to feel underpowered, if it comes to t/o from Buwa-Buwa (gravel requires even more thrust?). Maybe thats the reason why Airbus could not sell 400 or more A340 until now.
If I had to buy an aircraft to hop across the atlantic (in the sense of Abramovich..), I would go for the A330-200, good range, and you don't need a 10000ft-runway for t/o (cp. A340).
B747, A380, B763ER, A332 and A320 are my favourite current jets.

[LH-B744]

What I see is the necessity for A345 and A346, when big range is needed. And a 4-engine aircraft is always impressive for airport visitors like me.

...not that bigger thrust (A340).. I had a closer look at the A340 spec sheet (en.wikipedia.org), there it says that A340-300s do the t/o with max. 609,600 lb.
The pilot at this moment has the possibily to give a max. thrust of 605 kN to the aircraft, if he's lucky and the A343 is equipped with 4x CFM56-5C4 (151,25 kN each). Other engine versions have even less power.
So you can compare:
the strongest A343 version:
A340-313: mtow 609,600 lb - max. thrust 605 kN

the weakest A332 version:
A330-201: mtow 238 tons/524,800 lb - max. thrust 600 kN

Is it so that the A343 is never in the world fully loaded?
Otherwise on the A343 left seat you would feel like an overweight elephant, with comparatively 85,000 lb too much on board.

[Schorsch]

What I see is the necessity for A345 and A346, when big range is needed. And a 4-engine aircraft is always impressive for airport visitors like me.

...not that bigger thrust (A340).. I had a closer look at the A340 spec sheet (en.wikipedia.org), there it says that A340-300s do the t/o with max. 609,600 lb.
The pilot at this moment has the possibily to give a max. thrust of 605 kN to the aircraft, if he's lucky and the A343 is equipped with 4x CFM56-5C4 (151,25 kN each). Other engine versions have even less power.
So you can compare:
the strongest A343 version:
A340-313: mtow 609,600 lb - max. thrust 605 kN

the weakest A332 version:
A330-201: mtow 238 tons/524,800 lb - max. thrust 600 kN

Is it so that the A343 is never in the world fully loaded?
Otherwise on the A343 left seat you would feel like an overweight elephant, with comparatively 85,000 lb too much on board.

I thought it was common knowledge, it apparently isn't.

Twinjets need more installed thrust.
Why?
In case one engine fails, the twin has 50% thrust remaining, the quad has 75%. For that reason the quad has less power than a twin and the twin has better flight performance. There is a disadvantage however, the twin often cruises at less desirable thrust settings.

[seahawk]

And that is why many airlines operating from Europe into the hot and high airports of South America love their A340s for that routes. Max. TO weight has to be calculated so that it considers the case of en engine failure and this allows the A340 to take-off with a heavier load, than an twin, even when having less power with all egniens running.

[cf73]

Not sure about all the technical jargon here, but I have just booked my first flight on the A340-600 (Virgin SYD-HK-LHR).
It is not until January but I am already really looking forward to it.

[AA 1818]

So I guess we need to re-ask the question - where do we believe the future of the A340 will lead the family of aircraft?

With 744s (and other 747 variants) so easily being converted (and easily available) can the A340 family survive as freighters?

Will we see them be the long-haul backbone of smaller carriers as they try to expand (in the post-recession world)?

Will the A340s be relegated to governmental use (operating as VIP aircraft)?

Will the A350 dominate what was once an A340 market and replace the aircraft completely, or will there be room for both types in the future Airbus fleet?